Andy touched on the “not under the law” discussion in last week’s sermon:
https://northpoint.org/messages/talking-points/choosing-sides
Does it answer my question?
Dale, I was not replying to your post. My post was on the topic of this thread in general.
I heartily disagree with him on this. I listened to his debate/dialogue on Unbelievable. At first I thought to myself ‘you know what, this isn’t nearly as serious as many people are making it out to be’ and quickly begin to think 'wait…this is way worse than what I’ve been hearing other people say.
The Old Testament is crucial, CRUCIAL to understanding the New Testament. Can you be saved with just the New Testament? Absolutely, but you will never get the full breadth of it if you are willing to just let go of the parts of the OT that make you uncomfortable.
Jesus’ own lips rebukes the religious teachers at the time saying ‘have you not READ what was SPOKEN to you by God?’ The New Testament had not been pen when Jesus spoke these words. He is affirming the OT as the word of God and holding God’s people accountable to it.
1 Like
Could you provide the specific quote and show that it applies to the entire OT, not just a quote of God found in the OT?
Is this the text you mean, or is it another?
And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
Hey Vance,
I wasn’t referring to that Mark passage. I am actually referring to Matthew 22:29-32
But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
In the context, the Sadducees are stump Jesus with a question about the resurrection.
Again, the NT had not yet been written. Jesus is referring to the Scriptures that we now call the Old Testament.
Edit: sorry, submitted too early.
This is a parallel to Mark, however, the explicit teaching that this is God’s word and is authoritative is slightly clearer here imo
Felix, the passage refers to a direct quote from God found in the OT.
There is no claim in the passage that the entire OT is the Word of God.
In fact, in Mark, Jesus clearly calls the text the book of Moses, not the book of God.
But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
With all due respect, I heartily disagree. Jesus is telling the pharisees that they are mistaken about the resurrection because they do not know they Scriptures. Their lack of understanding of the Old Testament is what has caused them to believe the erroneous things that they do.
The fact that in Mark it is said that God spoke these things to Moses is irrelevant. If anything it strengthens my point when we look at the parallel of Matthew. What was spoken to Moses = what was spoken to us ("have you not read what was said to you by God).
While Jesus here is referencing a specific passage, that in no way applies that only this passage is the word of God and not all of the rest of Scriptures. Or only some of it.
This is not the only place where Jesus affirms the Old Testament.
In Luke 24:27, Jesus works his way through the OT Scriptures to show how he is figured there: Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
In John 10:35, Jesus tells us that the Scriptures cannot be broken.
In Matthew 4:4-10, as Jesus is in the wilderness, he responds to the satan’s various temptations by declaring it is written as a source for the reason he will not do such and such.
Beyond Jesus, we have the clear and unambiguous claim of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. While this now most certainly includes the NT, at the time of Paul’s writing, the NT had not yet been written and compiled. This claim of all Scripture being breathed out by God is a claim on the divine source of the Old Testament.
1 Like
Ok, Felix, we disagree on the texts in the gospels. I see the text as quite clear that Jesus is referring to a direct quote of God recorded in the story of burning bush. The passage does not, in any way, state the books of the OT were the Words of God. To extend it to saying, for example, the book of Ruth is the Word of God is not at all supported by these words of Jesus.
But we can agree to disagree.
I agree with you that 2 Timothy 3 is about the OT only, but it does not say that God breathed out the OT. That is why most translations say “inspired.” A compound word cannot be accurately defined by its two root words. A butterfly is not a fly made of butter.
By the way, you might consider a better translation:
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness…
Providential timing? (As if there is anything outside of God’s providence):
Or just one that suits your confirmation bias.
1 Like
My question is not just for @fmiddel.
Not really. A temptation is the possibility of putting ourselves our wants, our “needs” in the place of God. The real temptation is not to tell a lie, but the thought that telling a lie might help me escape punishment, or help me gain something that I “need.”
Faith is relational. It is not something we do.
The Sermon was very good although belated. I do not think it is true that both political parties are equally guilty when one party has made it a goal to be diverse and inclusive and has succeeded, and the other has failed. The Southern strategy of Nixon has paid dividends. Conservatives sowed the wind, and reaped the storm.
What’s wrong with telling a lie?
Obedience is relational. It is something we do.
Obedience is relational, and it is not something we do. It is something we are.
Jesus does not ask for obedience. He asks for faith. He asks for trust. To all those who believe in Him, the Father gives eternal life.
Our Father requires obedience. Disobedience is called sin. Jesus says we are to be obedient, as do Paul and Peter.
By faith, because we trust in Jesus, we have been adopted into his family for eternity. That does not negate obedience or excuse us from it. We are not always obedient, are we. It is not something we are – it is something we are becoming more and more, hopefully, and it is something we are seen as in Father’s eyes through the justifying and obedient work of Jesus. Jesus is our example in his perfect obedience and we are to emulate him. That involves doing.
You never did answer that.
But it also is objective. You have to be obedient to something or Someone.
My point was to show that the OT really was the go-to source for much of the behavior in the church. In other words, it was a major influence. Do we have a word problem?
1 Like
He makes some good points. Thx for posting.