@andrewt316, thank you for your response. Part of the problem here is that I was trying to dialog with @Dale before until I was turned off by his negative attitude. I will probably repeat myself some here with you, but you could read the discussion above to see some of the issues we discussed.
How do we know that we are saved and how do we know that we are in right relationship with God/? The basic answer is Love and the Holy Spirit. We love because God, Father, Son, and Spirit, first loved us. If we do not show forth Godâs love though forgiveness, then the chances are we really do not know Godâs love for us.
If we say we love God who we have not seen, but fail to love others who we have seen, we are liars. Love everyone, even your enemies, as does God. Be perfect as God is Perfect. God is Love.
Galatians 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, generosity, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. .
Jesus is our model, our ideal. WWJD, is a bit simplistic, but on the right track.
We all live in the context of our current situation. The fact is that most of the Evangelicals have signed on to the âcultural warsâ by which they have established a new version of Godâs Law, allegiance to which they say is the basis of the Christian faith. Francis A. Schaffer was one of those developing the idea of a Christian Nation based on Christian laws. That is why your endorsement of his book was a huge red flag. The reason that Andy is suggesting the unhitching of the OT as the go to Model for the NT Church is because the NT church is not based OT Law.
The other side of the cultural war, the presumably anti-Christian side seems to follow a different understanding of what it means to be right with God best seen in the activism of Dr. Martin L. King.
Adam and Eve were human beings, not cardboard figures. They allowed Satanâs lies to trick them into rebelling against God. Even though in a sense they are tricked, they willingly went along with Satan.
They did not defend Godâs integrity when Satan accused God of deceiving them and they, like we, are responsible for what we do. They had every reason to love and trust YHWH, but they accepted the âconspiracy theoryâ of Satan as true, just as many Americans today prefer conspiracy theories to established facts.
It is difficult for Westerners to accept the fact that Godâs Law of the OT is different from Godâs Will in the NT. However who are we to say that God cannot improve upon Godself. Godâs People evolved in the OT from Abram and Sarai, to Jacob and his 12 sons, to the 13 tribes in Egypt, the Exodus, and in the Promised Land, the Kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon, the divided Kingdom and the Prophets, the end of both kingdoms and Exile, Return without independence, to Herodâs Temple under the Roman Empire. Who is to say that all of this 2000 years of history is not Godâs preparation to send to us the Son?
Hebrews 1:1-3 (NIV2011)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
3 The Son is the radiance of Godâs glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
What I am saying is not new. I may be new to you, but it is very traditional, although maybe expressed in a different way. If you want to be conservative, this is the way. .
@Relates as you suggested, just tracing back your previous posts in this thread to find some common ground and differentiate points of differences.
I think this would be better re-phrased, Christians get into trouble when they make the OT the basis of morality. Christians can still understand the will of God from the OT when we realise that the OT (and the NT) are collections of polemics (I.e. critiques and attacks on the cultures of the day). The polemics were not only reserved for the cultures surrounding Israel; in fact, the main subject of criticism by OT authors is Israel and Judea themselves. As Christians we tend to look for a âmodelâ for godly character, but we will not find any in the OT (this is on purpose) because the OT authors were demonstrating the imperfection of the human person as a âsovereignâ.
To understand the context of the Bible, a person needs to understand the reality of Genesis 3, without it Jesusâ ministry, death and resurrection would not mean anything to a person. Genesis 3 shows two things:
A trust that is broken between God the Creator (and true sovereign because he, being the designer, set up the order of things) and the human person.
A deliberate decision of the human person to replace God with themselves as a âsovereignâ (and they became like God knowing good and evil.
Point two is the lie that permeates throughout the OT as the main message of the Torah; to read the narratives of Moses, David, and other OT characters as being the model for morality is the lie that causes us to sin (doing things opposite to the original intent, falling short of Godâs standard).
So rather we read the OT as not âwhat to doâ, but âwhat not to doâ. As you have said previously God has introduced himself to Moses (and the rest of humanity by the Bible) as âI will be who I will beâ. From where-else does one get this idea? This is the revolutionary idea that has been revealed to humanity that Jesus teaches when he says âout of these stones God can raise children of Abrahamâ and âhe is Lord of the Sabbathâ, and ultimately his resurrection from the dead can any human person or false god make this claim in history? No one dares to; this is why Jesus is THE Son, THE Word, THE Saviour the image of the invisible God.
When we read the OT in this context, I think we can use the OT to understand the basis for God-centred morality (as opposed to human-made such as in the contemporary field of Artificial Intelligence).
As you have mentioned previously (and a point I agree with fully), this is relational because God is person not a machine, instruction manual, or genie. He reveals his Way (Iâll make the transition from using the word Law or Torah translated in the NT for clarity) to the minds of individuals no longer via the mouth of a prophet, priest or king because Christ has made a way for sinners to converse directly with God and survive; this is why Godâs presence is no longer in the Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple is destroyed: the individual bodies of believers are now the dwelling place of YHWH.
I hope this clarifies my position on the use of the OT or so called Law / Torah, Prophets, and Writings (the OT is not just the Law / Torah), when I reference it.
I donât think it is fruitful in separating the covenants into âOTâ and âNTâ covenants because:
There is not just two covenants
The covenants apply to different cohorts of people
The fulfilment of âcommandsâ were never the basis of fulfilment of the covenants
I think Christians miss the 3rd point, which has led to the whole Suppressionsism debate among Christians. Speaking to my Jewish friends, they never believed (traditionally in their family lineages as well) that God was required to save anyone because of what they have done (this was a teaching from the Pharisees and justification for their evil sacrificial and temple system). How they view the OT (and NT for those Jews who believe Christ to be the Messiah) covenants is that these are promises of God that he will fulfil for those that trust him like Abraham did.
I encourage a study (see how OT authors used the word in context) on the Hebrew word âEmunahâ (Strong's Hebrew: 530. ×Öą××Öź× Ö¸×, (emunah) -- firmness, steadfastness, fidelity) often translated in the OT as âfaithâ or âtrustâ this is the same concept in the NT with the Koine Greek for trust / belief. However, it is more than just belief (obviously it is hard to convey a meaning of a word in another language, so the NT authors settled on the Greek word for âbeliefâ). Even Satan and the demons âbelieve in Godâ; even the Pharisees and the Scribes âbelieve in Godâ to justify their âLawâ, even the crowds and the Roman soldiers âbelieve in Godâ when they see the miracles and power of God; but the nuance with âEmunahâ is that it is âunwaveringâ, the Apostles and the Early Christians didnât follow Jesus for a time and then leave him like for example Judas (although some sinned, even Peter, in denying him), but rather throughout their life there was an unwavering trust (even through denial as evidenced by Peter) in the promises and instructions that God gave: their behaviour was not based on a list of rules like Moses wrote (something controversial at the time, but confirmed by Paul, James and Peter in the Acts passaged I mentioned previously), but rather knowing and trusting the character, promises and historical actions of God as being âTruthâ and the character, promises and historical actions of everyone else as being âLieâ.
This is revolutionary! No other belief system I have encountered teaches this: that God makes up his own mind, not people (like with other religions) and that salvation and life comes from personal relationship, nor pursuit of religious practices. This is why I trust Christ!
Iâm not sure how you perceive Schaeffer as promoting some kind of 20th century âChristian Nationâ or âLawâ because the above is the main point of the first 6 chapters of âTrue Spiritualityâ: freedom from religion and a personal relationship with God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YHWH. He actually multiple times critiques the making of âlistsâ (I.e. rules of what is right and wrong) and from what Iâve read of his biography is the reason why he left the Episcopal tradition and started LâAbri. Most of his public material is actually published, against his behest, by his students and I believe Frank (who wanted him to make the documentary âHow Then Shall We Liveâ whilst he was dying of cancer): largely from what I have read he was promoting a private, personal revelation and fellowship (LâAbri was originally not a public institution) with little interest of politics (both religious and secular).
Any association with a âChristian Nationâ might have come from his followers after he died? Similar to how misinterpretation of John Wesley turned into Methodism. Thereâs probably a wealth of intellectual property that his followers are capitalising on and distorting to the massesâŚ
Yes! This is what I believe; apologies, if my posts appear convoluted in conveying this belief.
I agree with you here: the rich man finds it hard to enter the kingdom of God because he is not content with God when he is instructed to leave his wealth behind. I bring up Schaeffer again (not because I want some sort of Christian Nation like you say, but to help bring âlove Godâ into 21st century context). Schaeffer writes the test for whether we love God is the following question (paraphrased): âAm I content enough with God to be joyful and thankful in all circumstances?â The encounter you described is not about wealth (as you say) but rather trust (as you say).
A point of dis-agreeance is to say the Torah is a political covenant: I would say it is a covenant that can be politicised just how the NT covenant was politicised by the Roman Catholic Church when it became the State religion. The Torah itself for many generations (even Jesus and the Apostles) was a private affair; again I emphasise what Paul, James and Peter are saying in Acts 15 (and Jesus in Matthew) - they are not promoting abolishment of Torah, but rather following it is not a requirement to be a Christian: one canât deny that Peter, James and other Jewish Christians followed Torah - the evidence is in Acts.
I think it is equally prejudiced to say that one cannot practice the Torah and be a Christian. Otherwise, youâd be excluding those who follow Torah and trust Christ from the Church: remember that anti-semitism and âunhitching the OT from the NTâ started as a deliberate political move from the Roman Church (canât say it is THE motive at the moment in 21st century, but subconsciously it might be).
Jesus says in his Fatherâs house there are many rooms; who are we to say whether one room canât be for Torah following Christians? This is a question of âformâ vs. âfunctionâ long debated in the Church and the division often caused by denominations claiming that their denomination is how the rooms of the Fatherâs house should all be decorated.
Agreed, temptation is not word or deed, but rather the thought. Faith is relational as I mentioned previously in this post regarding OT concept of Emunah.
Agreed, @Dale this is why Paul writes to the Romans in Romans 4 and author of Hebrews in Hebrews 11 clarifies that Abraham was credited with righteousness not because of his actions (he failed on many accounts, this was the implicit critique of Abraham by the author of Genesis), but because he trusted Godâs promise and obeyed the instruction. This was pre-Mosaic Law and demonstrates what Emunah actually is (not objective and legalistic, but subjective and personal): this is revolutionary concept for God and humanity presented in the Bible, and to my knowledge not present anywhere else in any other belief system.
I think in our discussion we are making the same mistakes as previous generations of the Church.
One cannot be faithful without obedience; and one cannot have true obedience without faith. This is why the NT writers use Abraham as an example to remove the clutter that the Mosaic Law caused in understanding the concept of Emunah (I.e. faith). Hence, Iâve re-iterated several times, Paul and James are saying the same thing just different sides of the same coin (I.e. faith without works is dead, and we are saved by grace through faith). I pray that we as the Church be reminded and see this to avoid pointless argument.
The Mosaic Law is one guide for faith, but not THE guide (also I think we as the Church would avoid much confusion if we discard the Middle Age English translation of Torah as âLawâ and use the actual meaning, which is âInstructionâ or âGuidanceâ). Apostles made it clear that the Church has new avenue and license to create new and better forms of obedience in our present context.
Agreed; âdo we love our fellow human being enough not to envy?â Although, this is only half of it, the other question would be âdo we love God enough to be content in all situations?â (See Job for an example and even Abraham who was quite hospitable to others but not contented with the lack of an heir) It is a balancing act, at times we may feel like we donât envy others, but find ourselves not being content in all situations; at other times, we may feel we are content in all situations, but envy one or more persons. This is why Jesus says blessed are the poor in spirit; no one can claim that they can say âYesâ to these two questions at any point in time; true faith involves realising our own personal sin and dialogue with God, but more importantly repent (turn away from our sin) to be better contented with God and less envious of our fellow human being.
Agreed - Paul expanded on this idea when he wrote to the Ephesians regarding the struggle for humanity is not against âflesh and bloodâ (I.e. each other as sinners), but rather the ârulersâ, âauthoritiesâ, âpowers of this evil worldâ and âdark spiritual forcesâ (I.e. institutions, and sources of sin). These institutions and sources of sin are the things that create legalism and captivate people to be legalists. However, Jesus gives us hope when he says that âfaithâ is what allows us to remove âthe mountainâ (Iâll leave this as metaphor without explanation to not make the post too long). He gave hope to the Samaritan woman when he said that "the time is now when she would not longer worship on the mountain (I.e. high places of worship the Northern Kingdom of Israel went to worship) or the Temple in Jerusalem, but in Spirit and in Truth. We find rest in Jesusâ kingdom because it is not burdensome like the legalistic institutions of our world.
As Christians, we are struggling against the Legalists defending the right to worship in Spirit and in Truth; many have died past and present due to this lifestyle (even due to other âChristiansâ! For example the conflicts in Ireland and the United Kingdom).
So, I agree with you @Relates we must reject legalism.
Agreed, for the reasons previously mentioned. Although, I find loving Satan theoretical and hence thought on this notion would not be fruitful for the life of a Christian.
As @Dale mentioned: âGodâs love cannot be perverted, obviously, but othersâ can, also obviously.â
As you mentioned, we love as inspired by Jesus and the Holy Spirit who is continually guiding as to âlove as Jesusâ in our present context. Completely agree with you here; love is personal not a âmethodâ or âlist of actsâ.
I think of âpinning Love down to âPro-Lifeââ is wrong; not necessarily âPro-Lifeâ is wrong. God promotes life, but how we demonstrate that could be better when dealing with our enemies who donât agree. Iâm not a big fan of lobbying; I always liked how the early Christians moved from house to house and formed ideas, opinions and ways of living privately within their circle of family and friends rather than trying to over-throw Rome. This is essentially what Martin Luther King Jr. and unnamed drivers of the Solidarity movement did.
@Dale@Relates I donât think we can apply the Psalms to any covenant to all of Godâs people in this context; the vows are exclusively relating to the Psalmist and their personal relationship with God. So, I think the exercise in discussing this is not fruitful, as it is possible where the conversation went sour?
@Relates I took a bit of time going through the previous discussions. Hopefully it as cleared up some points of agree-ance. Feel free to continue with any points of dis-agreeance relating to âunhitching the OT from the NTâ just trying to reel back the conversation to the opening topic.
@Relates apologies for the second post, just thought itâd be clearer.
Agree with the above.
I actually donât support the Evangelical movement (gasps) I was a part of it for several years, but wonât divulge to reduce clutter in the thread. I largely now live out my faith privately and only talk about it with others if prompted to do so. It was actually reading of âTrue Spiritualityâ by Schaeffer that inspired me to leave the Evangelical movement, which is why I found it strange that your interpretation of the reading led you the conclusion he wanted to build a âChristian Nationâ (I expand on this in the post just before this one).
I think Iâve misinterpreted the purpose of this thread if the above is what Andy meant. In my previous post just before this, I emphasis that the OT is not the go to model for the NT church, but rather can (I emphasis can) inform us on Godâs personality and the mistakes of humanity and a people of God.
I agree with the explanation of Satan, Adam and Eve, but confused about what you mean about Dr. Martin L. Kingâs activism being âanti-christianâ?
Are you saying the God described in the OT is different to the God in the NT? If âunhitching the OT from the NTâ means this conclusion; I dis-agree with this.
The God described in the OT is the same as the God in the NT. He has the same personality and consistent throughout.
A word on what I think is the confusion between us: Godâs relationship with Israel in the OT is personal between them. This is why it is not a practical model for all people for all time. God is personal and will inspire humanity to build, destroy and re-build âmodelsâ to assist us in living with one another. I donât think with this revelation there is need to âunhitch the OT from the NTâ as if tomorrow we can just rip out the OT part of our Bibles and put it in the rubbish bin; to do that is to deny that God has spoken historically and continues to speak, not just during the time his was on earth in physical form.
It is not new, but think of the consequence. I know you are well-meaning brother in Christ, but âunhitching the OT from the NTâ is a seed for the hard-supressionism that has caused conflict and bloodshed amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims for hundreds of years. We would do well to try and understand each other better in the various âmodelsâ of living, in hopeful dialogue to de-radicalise the extremists and bring peace to the Middle East and other areas suffering due to the clash of beliefs.
Look to Jesus and the Apostles - they did not âunhitch the OT from the NTâ when they were with Jews they acted like Jews, when they were with Gentiles they relaxed their traditions to better relate with them. Flexibility is key for peace.
I would certainly not promote the OT model as THE Christian way to live, but equally I would rebuke a Christian who says it is not A Christian way to live. Ironically, most NT models are based on OT model unknowingly such as the âCommunion or Massâ being a âPassover Mealâ, and many other Catholic and Protestant symbolism and ordinances are derived from OT/Jewish origins.
You obviously did! Thank you for your effort! I think I largely agree with everything you said, and donât see a particular where I donât â I am all about relationship, and I think the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood and friendship of Jesus are huge.
But I do have some questions about particularsâŚ
Agreed. Obedience to what?
Closely related to that question are a couple of verses that I have mentioned before that I think have been largely ignored by the âunhitchersâ and characteristically antinomian respondents are 1 John 5:3 and John 14:21. What are they talking about? I never have gotten a direct answer.
I would disagree with the statement that the God portrayed in the OT is the same as the God found in the NT. An important difference is âIn the Beginning was the Word (Logos.)â The God of the OT did not die upon a Cross of our sins. The God of the OT did not baptize people with the Holy Spirit and live in our their hearts.
The fact is not that God changed, but people and their situation changed. It is not that God evolved, but that people evolved under the guidance of God. The earth has evolved, not because God the Creator has changed or evolved, but because it and we are physical, so that is the way God created it and us.
We are historical, so that is the way God deals with us. Jesus Christ came as a historical person at a particular place and time. We are to relate to Him Who is in history, but transcends history. He was in the Beginning.
The Law does not do this. The Law does not do this it is not Personal. It is a set of rules and laws always invite legalism. Jesus made this clear when He challenged the way the Jews obeyed the Sabbath.
Matthew 5:19 (NIV2011)
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 11:11 (NIV2011)
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Your argument from Mt 5:19 is the strongest, but also very weak. Jesus seems to be endorsing the entire Law down to the most obscure cleanliness law and say that we must do likewise.
However, people who quote this verse do not trach and practice this. They do not eat Kosher, do not celebrate the Jewish Sabbath, and do not think that blood makes them unclean.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that it is wrong to change the Torah, while at the same time you are not following the Torah. Jesus probably meant that that he kept and fulfilled the Law, that is He was without sin, so we would not have to. Jesus died so we might be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit so we who are in Christ are in right relationship to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit , which was the purpose of the Law.
I appreciate your thoughts about âEmurah,â trust or faith that Abraham had. That is exactly the point that Paul made when he wrote that Abraham was justified by faith. The point being that Jesus did not import something strange into the Biblical faith, but still He made basic changes that only He could make as the Messiah. However the Jews did make changes under His influence and because the Temple was destroyed
Every faith has a Standard. The Jewish faithâs Standard is the Law, which we generally think of as the Decalogue. The Christian Standard is Jesus Christ. When Legalists make the Decalogue their Standard the Decalogue, then they are going back to Judaism.
Francis A. Schaffer is dead and gone. I have read that his thinking promoted a kind of Christian nationalism including the outlawing of abortion, which is being promoted by many e3vangelicals today. They are using the OT model of the King responsible for the morality of the people. This is against NT theology.
I would tend to agree. The best way I would put it is to say that it is Godâs job to judge others, not mine, or yours or the POTUS. I believe I know that if one is a true Christian, then you are saved. If you are not a Christian, then it is up to God, but Jesus said it is based on love of others Mt 25:31-46. Again Jesus is determinative.
@andrewt316 It seems that we agree in most things. I hope that you understand why for me and the non-evangelical church, Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End of our faith.
When Andy advocates the unhitching of the OT from the NT as the âgo toâ way to determine what the Church should do, I think that it is clear that he is opposing Trumpism and Legalism. I agree with him and support him in this respect.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
447
I did not use quotation marks . It is a paraphrase
For good measure.
Philippians 2:5-8 (NIV2011)
5 âŚ. as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to deathâ even death on a cross!
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
457
Right, your paraphrase. Why?
And your good measure says the same does it? That the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity collapsed after eternity, once for all infinite creation, in to a human ovum?
and characteristically antinomian respondents are 1 John 5:3 and John 14:21. What are they talking about? I never have gotten a direct answer.