In Search of Truth
"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)
 
 In Search of TruthIn Search Of Truth  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   Log inLog in 

authority of the Old Testament versus the New Testament

 
   In Search of Truth Forum Index -> Hermeneutics and Bible Authority
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:08 pm    Post subject: authority of the Old Testament versus the New Testament
For the sake of this discussion, I would like to presume the New Testament is taken as authoritative, and I would like to presume the inspiration and inerrancy of the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments).

Given that starting point, what do you believe about the authority of the Old Testament? Can we use commands and approved examples from the Old Testament to justify practices today? (As an example, this thread was spun off from a thread discussing polygamy.)

I believe that the answer is generally negative. More could be said, but I'll start with this quote from one of the articles on this site:

The Old and New Testaments

Application

So what is the application for us today? There are two things we should learn: One, the Old and New Testaments are synonyms for Old and New Covenants, not testimonies. Second, the Old Testament was done away at the cross by Christ's death, which ushered in the New Testament. Therefore, we are no longer under obligation to keep the laws of the Old Testament, neither is it authoritative to justify our actions today. But rather, we are bound to the New Testament and to use it for authority. Please read this passage in which Paul uses the analogy of the law of marriage to further describe the nature of the two covenants:

Paul wrote:
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another - to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (Romans 7:4)

Some may wonder if just the ceremonial law was done away and if the 10 commandments still remain. This question is resolved by looking further down in the context where Paul refers to the law again, "For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.'" (Romans 7:7). Therefore, the law that was done away also included the 10 commandments, which was directly referenced in this verse. God confirmed this upon the Mount of Transfiguration when He instructed the apostles to listen to Christ for authority and not to Moses and the prophets (Matthew 17:1-6 and Deuteronomy 18:15-22). Please see also Colossians 2:11-17.

The third and final lesson is that the Old Testament has been done away as an authority for how to be saved and how God's church should operate. However, the Old Testament is not been made worthless, but it serves as a great source of examples that are necessary for our spiritual growth and health (I Corinthians 1:11,12; Romans 15:4).
Back to top
Hugh McBryde



Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:07 pm    Post subject:
Doesn't the New Testament Certify the Old? The New Testament, at a time when there was only the Old to call "Scripture" says "All Scripture is inspired by God" and "Profitable for reproof and teaching".
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Back to top
sledford



Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:53 pm    Post subject:
Hugh McBryde wrote:
Doesn't the New Testament Certify the Old? The New Testament, at a time when there was only the Old to call "Scripture" says "All Scripture is inspired by God" and "Profitable for reproof and teaching".


You are summarizing a quote from 2 Tim 3:16:

2 Tim 3:16 wrote:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


and that must be harmonized with other scripture such as this:

Heb 8:13 wrote:
Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.


What do you think he means by decay, old, and vanish away in reference to the Mosaical law? I think we may need to start here and see what we can build out from this.
Back to top
Hugh McBryde



Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:03 am    Post subject: Superior to all authority here on earth and in scripture.
And that must be harmonized with this. Matthew 5:17-19:
Quote:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
It is JESUS of course, who says this. God himself, speaking for all of us to hear.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:44 pm    Post subject: Scripture must harmonize with Scripture, else misunderstood
Hugh, you raise a good and valuable question, which I believe must be clarified to properly understanding all that Scripture says on this point.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
And that must be harmonized with this. Matthew 5:17-19: ... It is JESUS of course, who says this. God himself, speaking for all of us to hear.

Please allow me to requote the passage and highlight a few phrases that could easily be overlooked in an effort to reconcile all the passages:

Matthew wrote:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:16-19)

The instruction observed is limited by the phrase "till all is fulfilled". If the Old Law has been fulfilled, then the binding power you reference is gone! Obviously, the question that needs to be asked now is, "Has the Old Law been fulfilled?". First, please note that Jesus did say that He came "to fulfill". Do you think He accomplished what He set out to do? Or, did Jesus fail in His task to fulfill the Old Law?

Furthermore, please consider the following passages:

Paul wrote:
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:4-5)

Please notice that Jesus was "the end" of the Old Law. And if there was any doubt as to which law was in mind, Paul specifically refers to Moses, his writing of the law, and then he quotes from Leviticus 18:5! If Christ was the end of the law, then what could follow after the law's end?

Paul again wrote:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ... Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:19-25)

What was the purpose of the law? Was that purpose fulfilled? Has the system of faith not yet come? How can we be under the authority of the tutor, as you have suggested, but yet be "no longer under a tutor", as Paul has stated?

Based on these passages, I understand that the Old Covenant and its Law had a limited scope, purpose, and lifetime. Once its purpose was achieved, its authority was brought to an end. However, its value and usefulness was not ended...

I believe the keyword here is authoritative. No one is arguing that the Old Law would be destroyed and have no power whatsoever. As part of God's body of Scriptures it would always continue to exhibit power, being "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). As was noted in the original post:

Paul wrote:
For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me." For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4-5)

Please notice how Paul quotes the Old Testament prophecy regarding Jesus to illuminate the character of Jesus, something that transcends all covenants beyond dispute. The Old Testament Scriptures and examples are still valuable to produce learning, patience, comfort, and hope, but they do not hold authoritative power as does current law. We cannot necessarily do something (or forbid something) just because it was practiced (or forbidden) in the Old Law.

Paul again wrote:
Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. (I Corinthians 1:6-12)

Again, these Old Testament provide examples and admonishment, so that we do not test God, as did the Israelites.

I believe Paul's analogy of the husband's law over his wife provides the best explanation of how to reconcile these Scriptures:

Paul wrote:
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. (Romans 7:2-4)

Through Jesus' death on the cross, the Jews were released from the power, the authority, "the law" of the Old Testament. Now consider the analogy again (not for proof, but for explanation):

If a woman's husband dies, must she continue to submit to her dead husband? No, she must submit to her new husband. Does that mean her old husband has any meaning, value, or influence over her? No, of course not. Her memories of their relation continues as an example and encouragement to her for her new relationship, but whenever the wishes of her old husband come in conflict with her new husband, she is bound to her new husband and must submit to him. ... Her old husband is not annihilated. He is just dead, but yet he still continues to admonish, teach, and encourage her as she reflects on him.

Similarly, the Old Law continues to provide valuable wisdom, comfort, teaching, encouragement, and admonishment; however, just because the Old Law commands something, we are under no obligation to follow. In fact, it no longer holds the power of law over us. We have submitted ourselves to a new husband and a new law, and that is what we must follow.

This post may not follow good debate form, because I did not strictly "hold your feet to the fire" in answering my first questions. However, as I said earlier, I seek resolution, not winning. You asked a question, a good question. I believe I have answered all your questions. Furthermore, I have explained a construct that reconciles all passages on the point. Is it not fair for you to do the same, if you seek the same? If I have overlooked something, you would be my friend for pointing it out to me.
_________________
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Last edited by m273p15c on Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
sledford



Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:39 am    Post subject:
2 Tim 3:16 wrote:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


I would like to follow up with another very simple observation relative to this admonition given by Paul. Is every piece of scripture intended to satisfy ALL of the areas identified? Restated, is every context of Scripture profitable in ALL four areas: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness?

I find common sense would answer that as no, not every passage of Scripture is useful in ALL four areas with the simple observation that not every passage reproves an individual. There are passages that are clearly reproof but not ALL of them are. By extension then, not every passage is considered to be "doctrine" either, and I mean doctrine as we commonly use it today as command that must be adhered to.

Therefore, the Old Covenant can be useful for the Christian as general instruction in the ways of righteousness of God by seeing and learning who He is and how he has interacted with man over time. But, the statement by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 is not sufficient to prove the Old Covenant is to be valid as doctrine after establishment of the New Covenant by Jesus. To establish whether the Old Covenant is or is not doctrine to the Christian, we must look elsewhere. And to that, I would commend to you the reasoning laid out by m273p15c in the previous post that the Old Covenant is no longer valid as doctrine to the Christian.
Back to top
Hugh McBryde



Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject: Straw men and Dualism.
M,

You use the word "Harmonize" which I believe is a good first step in understanding scripture. Often there SEEM to be contradictions in scripture, that are not there, they are there only in our preconceptions when approaching scripture. I've gone through several major shifts realizing that I'm the problem, scripture is not.

First, in the Matthew 5 passage, I read it as clearly saying that all is not fulfilled. This is a part of my effort to "harmonize". If I am correct, it cannot truly be said to be my effort, but God's through the Holy Spirit. We shall see of course. In Matthew 5, I read it that all is not fulfilled until heaven and earth pass away. Some things are fulfilled, all is not. To say all is fulfilled excludes the 2nd coming and makes Hyper Preterists of us. Yet another discussion. I suggest you read the blog of Dee Dee Warren for a summary of the arguments against Hyper Preterism.

Also, the law is not my righteousness, the Holy Spirit is my tutor, but the anchor and the test of the "spirits" is God's word. I don't think you would propose that Murder would be righteous in any context, now or then, thus the law while not our tutor and while it no longer condemns us if we have Christ, it accurately tells us when an act is outside of God's original intent by design. Similarly, I don't think it was ever God's plan, in that sense, for men and women to have sex indiscriminately with one another, thus God's righteous model is reflected in the law, and the laws of sexual behavior can tell us when we are (putting it mildly) closer to God in our actions or farther away. To put it indelicately for the sake of illustration, there is only one proper way to mount a donkey. The fulfillment of any part of the law will not have us becoming one flesh with animals and so on.

I am pinning you now as a dualist. You want it one way when the law makes you uncomfortable, so you preach of it's "Fulfillment" without telling us what form that fulfillment will take, until a homosexual wants to "marry" their "partner" and then you're probably a firey bearded Old Testament prophet, complete with robe, staff and tablets of stone. When that's not the issue, you want to imply an evolving revelation, and abolition of the law and a better "modern" understanding of what God "really meant".

I am not deriving my righteousness from the law. But if the law and the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, what doctrine? Put this in action. While you are at it, tell me what reproof can come from a law and from prophets so fulfilled that they are only intriguing reading? How do you correct, when the line is obliterated? How can the Old Testament in fact tell me about righteousness?

I will again draw your attention to two passages in Acts. First let's stop at the letter in chapter 15 to the Gentile Churches.
Quote:
"And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Several meetings have already occured at this point in time between Paul and James and Peter, and this is the verdict, and it wasn't an argument either, in which one lost, and others won. They agreed. That was the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter, because Peter knew better, Paul knew that, and this had been settled. So now it's in letter form. So why keep yourself from anything? Better yet, on what basis do you judge something to be fornication? Paul and Peter and James were probably ALL Pharisees, and as I have remarked before, we know Paul was, and he continued to LOUDLY claim and proclaim that he was one, long after conversion.

So let's put this in action, the same people who are writing this letter, among whom there is NO dissent or disagreement later advise in council for Paul to behave a certain way. Paul, who is on his way back from the gentiles, having cut his hair, because he is under a HEBREW LAWFUL VOW, is consulted with, instructed to act, and acts this way, after which he loudly proclaims, years later, that he is a PHARISEE. Acts 21:17-26
Quote:
"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them."
To summarize, Paul goes to the temple, to do things the law required, to show that he DOES NOT teach against the law. So when we harmonize, must we not take into account what people who stated things actually DO? Nowhere is Paul said to be wrong in his acts. ALL agree, Paul included. The purpose of his acts are specificly to DENY what it is you seem to be saying. James by the way, writes later in scripture that Faith without works is dead. So what sort of faith is spoken of by these works, which James has a hand in advising?

Paul is clearly NOT teaching the Jews among the gentiles to forsake the law. He is clearly NOT teaching them to leave their children uncircumcised. He is clearly ZEALOUS for the law as all his converted Jewish bretheren are. He is going to the temple to PROVE precisely that. As I said, it is later, in relation to these events that Paul claims STILL, to be a Pharisee.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Back to top
sledford



Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 103
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:25 pm    Post subject:
Hugh, it's going to take me some time to go through your logic. And on top of that I'm about to leave on a business trip for the next week and will have limited ability to reply. But, I would like to ask one question just to put into practical terms your point of view. Do you believe it is necessary for men today to be circumcised? And the natural follow on from that: is circumcision necessary for salvation? Ok, maybe two questions. Smile
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:48 am    Post subject: Old Law fulfilled in Christ, but still valuable for teaching
Hugh McBryde wrote:
In Matthew 5, I read it that all is not fulfilled until heaven and earth pass away. Some things are fulfilled, all is not. To say all is fulfilled excludes the 2nd coming and makes Hyper Preterists of us.

As I said, I can sympathize with your interpretation, especially considering your worldview; however, I believe Scripture does not support it. Do you not see how the verse could legitimately be interpreted as I described? (Ignore your assumptions for a second, because that is what I am challenging, and we'll never get anywhere, if all our assumptions must be maintained.) If not, we can examine the grammar more closely.

Furthermore, I believe you have jumped to an unnecessary conclusion and argued against a straw man yourself. I did not say all of Scripture was fulfilled. I said all of the Old Testament was fulfilled. The New Testament foretells the end of the world and Jesus 2nd coming, so I do not believe it has been fulfilled.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
Also, the law is not my righteousness, the Holy Spirit is my tutor, but the anchor and the test of the "spirits" is God's word.

Ok, so you have abandoned the Old Law, since it is not your tutor?

You are mistaken in thinking that the New Covenant needs the Old Covenant to forbid homosexuality or other sexual perversions. The Old Testament is corroborative and enlightening on these points, but it is not authoritative. The New Testament handles that just fine, and I would be happy to explain how, once we settle polygony.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
I am pinning you now as a dualist. You want it one way when the law makes you uncomfortable, so you preach of it's "Fulfillment" without telling us what form that fulfillment will take ...

As I said, I try to avoid name calling during a discussion, because it detracts from the argument and assumes the thing to be proven.

I provided you the exact fulfillment of the Old Law - Jesus Christ. His death nailed the Old Law to the cross and it died with Him (Romans 7:1-4). You may reject it, but the Scriptures are clear and my wording was clear.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
I am not deriving my righteousness from the law.

Well, Paul said the Old Law only provided righteousness through perfect obedience to the Law (Romans 10:4-5; Galatians 3:11-13). Since you have confessed to not use obedience to the Old Law as your source of righteousness, do you believe the Old Law was changed or put away? Which is it? It seems you have already surrendered the position that we cannot take the Old Law "as is" and just do what it says. Correct? Or, do you believe your righteousness arises from perfect obedience to the Old Law?

Hugh McBryde wrote:
But if the law and the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, what doctrine? Put this in action. While you are at it, tell me what reproof can come from a law and from prophets so fulfilled that they are only intriguing reading? How do you correct, when the line is obliterated? How can the Old Testament in fact tell me about righteousness?

Easy. Does the story of Noah teach you anything? Did you learn about God, His wrath, His holiness, His expectation, His mercy? Did you learn about what it takes to please God? Yes and no, right? We learn we must obey God or suffer His wrath, but are you going to go out and build an ark? Did not Moses pen these words too? Did not God tell Noah to build an ark? Did not God tell Moses to record these events? So, why are you not building an ark?

Just because the specific commands no longer apply to you, it would be a cavalier to dismiss their teaching ability. Or, did you not learn anything from the story of Noah?

Furthermore, the OT prophecies combined with their fulfillment make a profound argument for both the identity of the Christ and the inspiration of Scriptures (Acts 18:27-28; II Peter 1:16-21). With this we can teach the unbeliever!

Hugh McBryde wrote:
So why keep yourself from anything? Better yet, on what basis do you judge something to be fornication?

Because the New Testament is my authority and it condemns all forms of sexual perversion in multiple passages, amongst which not the least is Matthew 19:1-11. See also I Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 1:28-32. I admit there is a large amount of overlap between the moral requirements of the Old and New Covenants, but these morals are required today not because they were part of the Old, but because they are part of the New.

Primarily, I believe Matthew 19 establishes the pattern for acceptable intimate relations. Anything outside of that is unacceptable for the same reason that Jesus extracted rejection of divorce from Genesis 2:24. Once you understand how Jesus came to that conclusion, then you will understand the hermeneutic I am consistently following.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
To summarize, Paul goes to the temple, to do things the law required, to show that he DOES NOT teach against the law. So when we harmonize, must we not take into account what people who stated things actually DO? Nowhere is Paul said to be wrong in his acts. ALL agree, Paul included. The purpose of his acts are specifically to DENY what it is you seem to be saying.

In debating terms, I believe this is called the fallacy of "the false middle" or the "false dichotomy". This is not an "either-or" proposition.

I accept that Paul and other writers taught the authoritative power of the Old Law had come to an end (Romans 7:1-4; 10:4-5; Galatians 3-4; Hebrews 8:6-13). However, I also accept that the Jews were free to keep the now innocuous traditions of the Old Law, which were originally considered commands under the Old Law, provided they did not bind them on others.

Paul wrote:
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (Galatians 2:1-5)

Although Paul permitted Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:1-3), he did not permit Titus, because Judaizing teachers were compelling it as a requirement for keeping the Old Law. This gets back to sledford's question about circumcision, which answer I am also curious to hear.

You see, God does not ask any more of us than necessary. We can stay in whatever state the gospel finds us, provided it is not condemned in the New Covenant ("the commandments of God"):

Paul wrote:
Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called. (I Corinthians 7:18-24)

Furthermore, gospel preachers are expected to conform as much as possible to the custom of their listeners to remove as many barriers as possible:

Paul wrote:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (I Corinthians 9:19-23)

There is no real dilemma here: Paul taught that the authoritative power of the Old Law was dead (Romans 7:1-4 ...). However, he also taught and lived that Jews should stay as they are, provided that they did not compel others, and provided that their actions did not conflict with the New Covenant ("the commandments of God").

I believe polygony violates the New Law, but I will not argue it here. That's for another thread...

More could be said about several other minor points, but I'm trying to focus on the more fundamental points, while trying to elaborate on views that may be new to your thinking. ... If you feel I dodged a specific question, please let me know.

One last question, do you believe there were two covenants God made with man?
_________________
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)
Back to top
Hugh McBryde



Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
PostPosted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:35 pm    Post subject: One Giant Covenant?
m273p15c wrote:
"Do you not see how the verse could legitimately be interpreted as I described?"
Yup. I can ask the same question though, and once two credible interpretations are on the table, one cannot dogmaticly enforce their interpretation on someone else. My argument also depends on other verses such as the ones I cite regarding Paul, so if I accept your view, a leg goes out from under a chair that has more than three legs.
m273p15c wrote:
"Furthermore, I believe you have jumped to an unnecessary conclusion and argued against a straw man yourself. I did not say all of Scripture was fulfilled."
Good.
m273p15c wrote:
"I said all of the Old Testament was fulfilled."
So, if I can find ONE THING in the Old that hasn't been? Do you say the "Resurrection" has occured? Clearly the Pharisees believed in it based on the existing scriptures, prior to Christ coming. Thus all cannot be fulfilled unless the resurrection is in the past.
m273p15c wrote:
"Ok, so you have abandoned the Old Law, since it is not your tutor?"
The law contains within in the skeletal pattern of righteous behavior. It is not righteousness itself, I can count on the fact that if I listen to the Holy Spirit, whom I most certainly have, and study God's word, my behavior will seem to be following the law.
m273p15c wrote:
"You are mistaken in thinking that the New Covenant needs the Old Covenant to forbid homosexuality or other sexual perversions. The Old Testament is corroborative and enlightening on these points, but it is not authoritative. The New Testament handles that just fine, and I would be happy to explain how, once we settle polygony."
Ok, where did Paul come up with his notion that a man having his father's wife was bad? Offhand do you know of any place in the New Testament that forbids marrying your sister, and if not, are you for that?
m273p15c wrote:
"As I said, I try to avoid name calling during a discussion, because it detracts from the argument and assumes the thing to be proven."
My apologies, consider it the paradigm I will use in deciphering your words, until that assumption is shown as wrong. I don't think "dualism" is that heinous, particularly if unconcious. I don't think you are conciously dualistic, in practice you seem to be that way.
m273p15c wrote:
"His death nailed the Old Law to the cross and it died with Him (Romans 7:1-4). You may reject it, but the Scriptures are clear and my wording was clear."
I patiently await your answer on the resurrection.
m273p15c wrote:
"Paul said the Old Law only provided righteousness through perfect obedience to the Law (Romans 10:4-5; Galatians 3:11-13). Since you have confessed to not use obedience to the Old Law as your source of righteousness, do you believe the Old Law was changed or put away?"
I believe that it is put away as an avenue towards righteousness, which was always a trick question for us, since only Christ fulfilled the law by doing it and only he could. It was only theoreticly possible for us to fulfill the law, in the sense that you could concieve of someone actually doing it, even though they couldn't. Christ also died to take the punishment of the law, fulfilling it in that way as well. I think your concept of fulfillment is wrong.
m273p15c wrote:
"Which is it? It seems you have already surrendered the position that we cannot take the Old Law "as is" and just do what it says. Correct? Or, do you believe your righteousness arises from perfect obedience to the Old Law?"
Actually doing the law in my case comes from Obeying Christ, which coincidentally produces behavior that would comply with the law, not obeying the Law, but instead Obeying and Relying on Christ causes me to do what would seem to be obeying the law. Again, the law is a pattern. I find that if I obey my God, personally, in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, who saved me, that I find I am doing the law. I don't obey the law.

If I follow a man who treads down one path as opposed to the other, and that Path is within the boundries of the law, would I not appear to follow the law? Yet I follow Jesus Christ, not a map called the Law.
m273p15c wrote:
"Does the story of Noah teach you anything? Did you learn about God, His wrath, His holiness, His expectation, His mercy? Did you learn about what it takes to please God? Yes and no, right? We learn we must obey God or suffer His wrath, but are you going to go out and build an ark? Did not Moses pen these words too? Did not God tell Noah to build an ark? Did not God tell Moses to record these events? So, why are you not building an ark?"
So, it's only object lessons? Who's interpretation then tells us what these object lessons mean?
m273p15c wrote:
"Because the New Testament is my authority and it condemns all forms of sexual perversion in multiple passages, amongst which not the least is Matthew 19:1-11. See also I Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 1:28-32. I admit there is a large amount of overlap between the moral requirements of the Old and New Covenants, but these morals are required today not because they were part of the Old, but because they are part of the New."
So if I find one form of "Sexual Perversion" that you name as such, that is not specificly named in the New Testament, what are you going to do?
m273p15c wrote:
"I believe Matthew 19 establishes the pattern for acceptable intimate relations. Anything outside of that is unacceptable for the same reason that Jesus extracted rejection of divorce from Genesis 2:24. Once you understand how Jesus came to that conclusion, then you will understand the hermeneutic I am consistently following."
I'm exhausted, what "conclusion" does Jesus reach in Matthew 19 that has ANYTHING to do with monogamy other than the coincidental information that Adam and Eve were in one? He does not specificly refer to a monogamy, we just know that Adam and Eve's marriage fit the definition. They also fit the defintion of reproduction through asexual budding to produce a wife for yourself. They also fit a pattern of charging around naked or subsequently dressing in leaf aprons, or as God later clothed them, in animal skins. Do you wear NOTHING but Animal Skins?
m273p15c wrote:
"In debating terms, I believe this is called the fallacy of 'the false middle' or the 'false dichotomy'. This is not an "either-or" proposition."
The conclusion that Paul was wrong is necessary for your approach to work, and in that you condemn all of the Jerusalem leadership when scripture does not. You are not free to teach this since it was never said. You can go ahead and believe it yourself, but you are not free to teach others that his uncondemned, urged and endorsed action, approved of by all in Church Leadership, leadership composed of people who KNEW Christ, who TOUCHED Christ, who no doubt KISSED Christ, who BELIEVED in and on Christ, was in fact WRONG. I think I stand on solid ground in saying that which was so obviously endorsed by those who wrote scripture, in scripture is probably right.
m273p15c wrote:
"This gets back to sledford's question about circumcision, which answer I am also curious to hear."
My answer is that of the Jerusalem council and Paul as recorded in Acts 21. Paul did not teach Jews among the Gentiles to refrain from circumcising their children. What you speak of pertains to adults being circumcised of their own volition.
m273p15c wrote:
"I believe polygony violates the New Law, but I will not argue it here. That's for another thread..."
Yes, but I urge you to show in that thread, the condemnation of this "New Law". I can't find it and you've said my point, that it's not there, "resonates" with you.
m273p15c wrote:
"In my analysis, you have only made 2 arguments that remotely resonate with me: 1) The Old Testament approved and authorized polygynous marriages. 2) The New Testament nowhere explicitly condemns polygynous marriages."
Where? I don't accept Matthew 19 without a greater expansion of the argument you and others make about it. I continue to point out, Jesus was talking about divorce, and the permanence of Adam & Eve's union with regard to it, not about ALL aspects of their marriage as governing, and also as I have pointed out, you CANNOT apply all aspects of Adam and Eve's marriage as governing. Since you DO NOT have Christ pointing out their monogamy, only the permanence of their union, how is it that you seperate out their monogamy as important, or are you arguing some other passage?
m273p15c wrote:
"One last question, do you believe there were two covenants God made with man?"
There is one Covenant, of which there are many installments. All "New Covenants" are variations on the orginal theme. The first was; "Here's everything, have fun, don't eat from that tree". EVERYTHING flow from eating of the tree, if not, New Covenants (and the Old Testament Law was a New Covenant once in that sense) reboot EVERYTHING, the mere presence of a Newer Covenant wipes away the Old, thus there would BE NO SIN to atone for. But the first Covenant of "Don't eat from that tree" governs us TO THIS DAY, that is why we need Christ.
_________________
"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Back to top
Lionroot



Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:37 am    Post subject: Covenant versus Commandment
sledford wrote:
Heb 8:13 wrote:
Heb 8:13 In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away.


What do you think he means by decay, old, and vanish away in reference to the Mosaical law? I think we may need to start here and see what we can build out from this.


Aren't you confusing the concept of covenant and commandments here? The Covenant was made before the Law was given. They are separate items of consideration, and while the former is said to pass away the later is said to never pass away.

sledford wrote:
Do you believe it is necessary for men today to be circumcised? And the natural follow on from that: is circumcision necessary for salvation? Ok, maybe two questions. Smile


This question shows a consistent confusion in your thinking. Physical circumcision is a matter of the Old Covenant which you rightly have shown has passed away. As for the Law it stands until Heaven and Earth pass away. At least that is what Jesus said.

God Bless,

Robert
Back to top
m273p15c



Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 499
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:46 am    Post subject: multiple covenants, and they are package deals
"till all is fulfilled"

Hugh McBryde wrote:
So, if I can find ONE THING in the Old that hasn't been? Do you say the "Resurrection" has occured? Clearly the Pharisees believed in it based on the existing scriptures, prior to Christ coming. Thus all cannot be fulfilled unless the resurrection is in the past.

A few points here:
  1. What Scripture in the Old Law foretells the resurrection? I see no argument without Scripture backing.

  2. There is a difference between the Old Law foretelling the resurrection and its certainty being garnered, necessarily arising from non-prophetic texts. Promises require fulfillment. Prophecies require fulfillment. I believe all of the promises and prophecies associated with the Old Law were fulfilled. This goes back to the first question, "Where is the verse in the Old Law that foretells the resurrection?"

  3. Beside Matthew 5:17-18, many passages say that Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Where is the passage that says the Old Law remains unfulfilled? For example, we have:

    Luke wrote:
    Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-47)

    But, where is the passage that speaks of anything yet remaining? I looked up all forms of "fulfill" in a concordance. Forty-one of those occurrences are past tense and refer to Jesus or some other event being "fulfilled" from the Old Testament. Yet, I only find one occurrence of "fulfill" in the future tense that refers to events prophesied/promised in the Old Testament - Matthew 5:17, which chronologically occurs before many of the events surrounding Jesus that are labeled as fulfilling the Old Law.

  4. Parallel passage helps interpret Matthew 5:17-18:

    Luke wrote:
    "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:16-17)

    The idea is that the God's Law will not fail in fulfilling its mission. That is more sure than the sun in the sky and the earth on which you stand (the most sure tangible things).

    Interestingly, the parallel verse also limits the lifetime of the Old Law, pinning the preaching of its message up until John the Baptist, who first preached the gospel of the kingdom.

  5. Power of the parallel - Could we understand Jesus' statement to permit a little destroying of the Old Law? Just a few verses? No, He did not destroy any of it. Likewise, we are to understand that He fulfilled all of it. The remaining fulfillments all pertain to His coming, His life, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, His kingdom, His sending of the Spirit, His law, His judgment, and His wrath.

  6. Absurd alternative. Please consider the alternative. If the Old Law has not been fulfilled, then according to Jesus statement, we must not break one single law of the Old Law!

    Matthew wrote:
    "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

    This is corroborated by other passages in the New Testament:

    Paul wrote:
    And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. (Galatians 5:3)

    Therefore, if one part of the Old Law is restored, (because it is part of the Old Law, not because it is reinstated in the New Law), then all must be kept!

    James wrote:
    For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10-11)

    Do you believe circumcision is necessary for salvation? It was under the Old Law (Leviticus 12:3). If you fail to keep this one point, or any other point, and fail to teach others to do the same, then you are guilty of the entire law!

  7. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law by fulfilling its prophecies (see #3), requirement for punishment, and righteous commands:

    Paul wrote:
    For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:3-4)

    For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:10-14)

    What is left to be fulfilled? Plus, I think this also clarifies the misunderstanding evidenced by this quote:

    Hugh McBryde wrote:
    Christ also died to take the punishment of the law, fulfilling it in that way as well. I think your concept of fulfillment is wrong.
The Old Law was a package deal.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
The law contains within in the skeletal pattern of righteous behavior. It is not righteousness itself, I can count on the fact that if I listen to the Holy Spirit, whom I most certainly have, and study God's word, my behavior will seem to be following the law.

I believe this flatly contradicts Scripture. The Old Law is much more than a "skeletal pattern" of righteous behavior. It is a law which provided for both life and death. By it a man could be justified, if he kept it perfectly.
Paul wrote:
The law contains within in the skeletal pattern of righteous behavior. It is not righteousness itself, I can count on the fact that if I listen to the Holy Spirit, whom I most certainly have, and study God's word, my behavior will seem to be following the law. (Galatians 3:12)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:4-5)

The only kind of righteousness and salvation the Old Law can authorize is through perfect law keeping. If you go back to the Old Law alone for anything authoritative (do this, don't do that, can do this, can't do that, etc.), then you are bound to keep it all (Matthew 5:17-19; Galatians 5:3; James 2:10-11 - see point above)!

The most notable "weakness" of the Old Law was its inability to account for the weakness of man and provide salvation by grace through faith, apart from perfect law keeping (Romans 8:3-4; Galatians 3:21).

Again, I do not believe you are being consistent. You say that you are following the law, but what about circumcision, feast days, new moons, Sabbaths, temple worship, incense, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.? If you are not doing these things, you are not following the law, because they all requirements of the law. ... I believe this is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. Smile

Hugh McBryde wrote:
I believe that it is put away as an avenue towards righteousness, ...

Again, I believe you have surrendered your position. As soon as any element of the Old Law is put away then it ALL must be put away. No partial change, addition, or annulment can be made to any covenant:

Paul wrote:
Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. ... And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. (Galatians 3:15-17)

For example, if the priesthood is changed, then the law must be changed too, at least that's argument provided here:

The author of Hebrews wrote:
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest... (Hebrews 7:11-15)

Beside being an astonishing proof text for respecting the silence of the Scriptures, this passage also "necessitates" a changing of the law, because the priesthood was changed! Do you have an Aaronic priest, through whom you worship? If not, then you are not following the Old Law, and you have already dismissed its authority!

Hugh McBryde wrote:
Actually doing the law in my case comes from Obeying Christ, which coincidentally produces behavior that would comply with the law, not obeying the Law, but instead Obeying and Relying on Christ causes me to do what would seem to be obeying the law. Again, the law is a pattern. I find that if I obey my God, personally, in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, who saved me, that I find I am doing the law. I don't obey the law.

If I follow a man who treads down one path as opposed to the other, and that Path is within the boundries of the law, would I not appear to follow the law? Yet I follow Jesus Christ, not a map called the Law.

Again, this is logically inconsistent with Scripture. The Old Law clearly represented a separate economy. It had a different government, mission, priesthood, and law. If you obey Christ, then you are not obeying the Old Law. (Recall circumcision, new moons, Sabbaths, animal sacrifices, tithing, killing idolatrous neighbors, etc.). Unless you do everything in the Old Law, you have already dismissed its authoritative power; otherwise, you are disobeying it. Unless you are doing all these things, then you are not "treading down a path that is within the boundaries of the law". You do not even remotely appear to be following the Old Law - just partially.

Again, same problem here:

Hugh McBryde wrote:
My answer is that of the Jerusalem council and Paul as recorded in Acts 21. Paul did not teach Jews among the Gentiles to refrain from circumcising their children. What you speak of pertains to adults being circumcised of their own volition.

Yes, but he did not say that they had to do so either! Circumcision was not a requirement, as you have confirmed; therefore, the authority of the Old Law is dismissed! Just because somebody could or could not do something in the Old Testament, we are not free to think the same applies today. Commandments given then are not necessarily applicable now; otherwise, you would command circumcision, as did the Judaizing Jews who instigated the trouble in Acts 15:1-3.

Not one covenant - but multiple covenants

Although I understand what you are saying, I believe it flatly contradicts Scripture that there have been multiple covenants!

Paul wrote:
Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. (Galatians 3:15-17)

We have examined this one earlier, but it is worth repeating here: Paul flatly says that a confirmed covenant cannot be annulled or added to. It is impossible to insert extra "installments". Paul uses this argument to prove the ongoing validity of God's covenant to Abraham (covenant #A) in light of God's covenant to Israel (covenant #B).

Again...

Paul wrote:
Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- (Galatians 4:20-24)

How many covenants?

Again, I understand your model, and accept its possibility; however, it must be backed with Scripture to be seriously considered. Furthermore, you must be able to reconcile the above passages.

Friendly Reminder

Maybe I overlooked your reply, plus it is charitable to assume it was an accident, but I believe you may have overlooked addressing the following passages, which merit a logical reply backed with Scripture:

Paul wrote:
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." (Romans 10:4-5)

How is Christ the end of the Old Law?

Paul wrote:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. ... Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:19-25)

Has the Old Law fulfilled this purpose? If so, then it is fulfilled and dismissed. Otherwise, we have still not been brought to Christ, and we are still under the bondage of perfect law keeping associated with the "tutor".

This one was briefly referenced in various posts:

Paul wrote:
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths (Colossians 2:13-16)

What document told us about sin? The Old Law taught us about sin (Romans 7:7-9); therefore, it was the document nailed to the cross! Furthermore, the nailing of this document also released us from judgment according to "food, drink, new moon, Sabbaths" and other cardinal ordinances. What covenant teaches us about Sabbaths, feast days, etc.? Is it not the Old Law? Therefore, it must be the document nailed to the cross!

Here's a new one, but it supports the same line of reasoning:

Paul wrote:
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. (Ephesians 2:14-16)

Through His death on the cross, did Christ "abolish" the law of commandments or not? If He did, then how can you use it as authoritative?

Secondary Objections

I believe the preceding arguments stand on their own. The following objections only challenge one's faith in accepting application of the broader rule. Unless we accept prejudice as authority, our preconceived notions on these points should not be used as basis for overturning a broader rule that is taught in Scripture.

It is backward to overturn a hermeneutic just because it violates a cherished doctrine. Hermeneutics produce doctrine, not the other way around.

In regards to continued profit of the Old Testament:

Hugh McBryde wrote:
So, it's only object lessons? Who's interpretation then tells us what these object lessons mean?

The same people who tell us what every verse in the New Testament means.

In regards to pinning me up against undesirable conclusions:

Hugh McBryde wrote:
So if I find one form of "Sexual Perversion" that you name as such, that is not specifically named in the New Testament, what are you going to do?

First, find it! Then, I'll search the New Testament, pray, and then accept the conclusion the New Testament teaches.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
I'm exhausted, what "conclusion" does Jesus reach in Matthew 19 that has ANYTHING to do with monogamy other than the coincidental information that Adam and Eve were in one? ... Yes, but I urge you to show in that thread, the condemnation of this "New Law". I can't find it and you've said my point, that it's not there, "resonates" with you.

Will answer tomorrow (or soon) in the other thread. Actually, I may put it off until we are done here, because I believe this is more fundamental.

Hugh McBryde wrote:
They also fit the definition of reproduction through asexual budding to produce a wife for yourself. They also fit a pattern of charging around naked or subsequently dressing in leaf aprons, or as God later clothed them, in animal skins. Do you wear NOTHING but Animal Skins?

No, because that part of the Old Testament was not reinstated as a pattern or requirement for anything.

Other Miscommunication

Hugh McBryde wrote:
The conclusion that Paul was wrong is necessary for your approach to work, and in that you condemn all of the Jerusalem leadership when scripture does not. ...

No, you misunderstood me. I did not say that Paul or James were wrong in their actions.

As long as a Jew understood that it was not toward salvation, Paul taught that such a person would be better to continue in their Jewish traditions. However, these deeds were limited to those that did not conflict with the requirements of the New Law.

I believe my reconciliation still stands, because Paul did not require the Jews to continue the traditions for the purpose of salvation, and because these traditions did not conflict with the New Covenant. They were innocuous and actually recommended to facilitate the gospel's movement among the brethren (I Corinthians 9:19-23).

I believe you must show either a Scriptural or logical inconsistency in my reconciliation to disregard it.
_________________
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Last edited by m273p15c on Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Lionroot



Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
PostPosted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:46 pm    Post subject: Old Law, New Law? HUH?
m273p15c,


The scripture is clear about the Old Covenant and the New One.

By the term "Old Law" do you refer to the Torah or the Commandments? Perhaps like many you consider them an indistinguishable amalgamation? Is the term "Old Law" extra-Biblical?

I can find the term "New Covenant", where then is the term "New Law"? Is that an extra-Biblical term?

Christ quotes heavily from the Torah, especially Leviticus. Paul quotes similarly from the Torah and the Prophets, indeed he says he would not know what sin was if it wasn't for the Law, and elsewhere writes:

1Cr 10:1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;


1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;


1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I leave this for your consideration.

God Bless,

Robert
Back to top
Hugh McBryde



Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 71
Location: Montana Again (Whew)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:26 pm    Post subject: Please excuse me if I missed anything...
m273p15c wrote:
"I believe all of the promises and prophecies associated with the Old Law were fulfilled. This goes back to the first question, 'Where is the verse in the Old Law that foretells the resurrection'?"
I really don't need to prove this, it is proven already in the bounds of the New Testament. Acts 23:6:
Quote:
"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
I need go no further. Paul declares in scripture, his commentary on the Old Testament, that it creates the hope of resurr