It is not my place to put requirements on women for head covering.
I accept everything Jesus taught about divorce and adultery, and we may not interpret the scriptures the same way.
It is not my place to put requirements on women for head covering.
I accept everything Jesus taught about divorce and adultery, and we may not interpret the scriptures the same way.
On the contrary, we love one another because Jesus loves us and we follow the example of God and Jesus.
John 15:
As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Fatherâs commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.
12 âThis is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Not unlike the vast majority of 21st century evangelicals, you donât understand why The Lordâs Day of rest is the Christian Sabbath.
Sounds like you are arguing that the OT is not the go-to set of instructions for the church. If it were, we would still do no work from sundown Friday to sundown Sunday.
I agree with that.
He is absolutely wrong. It is critical to see how everything in the OT was a type for what was to follow. (And nobody told Jesus, who quotes the OT)
Nobody told Jesus what?
I quote from the OT. Andy Stanley quotes from the OT.
The discussion is over whether the OT is the go-to source for any behavior in the church. Do you think it is?
If so, we should stone to death people who gather sticks on Saturday afternoon.
It is not just warm and squishy feelings â there are objective âlaws of loveâ. There are explicit things that if we do them, we are not loving each other or God. Letâs start with the Ten Commandments.
Hardly. You have to understand who Jesus is, why he came and what love is.
This is a completely false dilemma. If one does not âunhitchâ from the OT it does not imply that one follows Mosaic Law.
So you are still âhitchedâ to the Law of Moses but you donât follow it?
What is the nature of this hitch?
You need to understand the different types of laws in the Pentateuch â moral, civil, sanitary and dietary, and ceremonial. Moral laws, the laws of love, still are absolutely in effect.
If all Stanley meant by âunhitchâ was that we should not follow the Mosaic law, it would be a âduhâ that wasnât worth the pixels it uses. I assume he meant something more substantive, namely that we should not give much credence to the text. If so, it is total nonsense. Without understanding the Mosaic Law I have a much poorer understanding of its replacement, grace based on Christâs fulfillment. I am surprised that one has to point this out, but every aspect of the New Testament is best understood by its contrast to the old. It is a New and Better meme if you will.
New and Better Covenant
New and Better Law (Sermon on the Mount)
New and Better Priesthood
New and Better Temple
New and Better Sabbath (as described in Hebrews)
New and Better Sacrifice
New and Better Covenantal Sign (Baptism)
I understand why the new, and why it is better, because I understand the old. My Christianity would have much less context if I âunhitchedâ myself from the OT.
Your assumption is wrong. If you listened to his sermons as I have for a dozen or more years, you would have heard many, many sermons from the OT.
Taking a sound byte and expanding it to say something else sometimes leads to wrong conclusions.
Then tell me what he meant by âunhitchâ.
As I recall, there are more than 600 OT laws. Perhaps you would like to list the ones that you believe you are still under.
You want me to summarize the sermon or sermon series?
I can try, but if you are not satisfied you should listen to the sermons on line before asking me more.
Just before He was arrested, Jesus gave us a new command: that we should love one another. He wanted unbelievers to see our love and see Godâs love through us.
This new command was foreshadowed in his earlier ministry. For example:
And then, after entrusting the keys to the kingdom and ascending, the church spread to the Gentiles. And, in Acts 15, those with the power to loose and bind decided, in agreement with the Holy Spirit, that the believers of Gentile origin are not under the yoke of the law of Moses.
So the OT was not the go-to set of instructions for the church.
That does not mean the OT has no value.
Much sparring and time would probably have been saved if the word âfulfillâ had been used rather than âunhitchâ. Stanleyâs detractors here have been universally translating âunhitchâ as âthrow outâ. I may not have listened to as many of his sermons as Vance has, but Iâve listened to just enough to know that he isnât trying to âthrow outâ the old testament. Heâs only trying to get those weak in faith (or who abandoned the faith) over their conniptions for what all they find in there to realize that they need not stew over what they fail to understand (or misunderstand) from the old testament. They can pay attention to the new covenant and be just fine. For those who then want to grow in understanding and faith, then yes ⌠a study of the old (in light of the ânewâ and not vice versa) is appropriate. I havenât heard Stanley say anything to make me think he would disagree with that last statement above.
As Christians, the foundation of our faith is Jesus, not Genesis. Were it not for Christ, none of us here would be having this conversation right now. Genesis (and all the âlaw and prophetsâ) would have been long forgotten by everyone except some remnant of faithful Jews.
Then I repeat that his statement neednât be said. Only a very small percentage of professing Christians claim that Mosaic laws should be obeyed [1], except perhaps for the decalogue. The dietary, civil, and ceremonial laws are nearly universally accepted as being abrogated. So the question is really only about the 10 Commandments. And the only real question there is whether they are still âtheâ law, as they were in the Old Covenant, or if the sermon on the mount is now âtheâ law. But that is a technical point. As you say, Jesus made the laws harder, addressing motives of the heart more than actions. But clearly the actions are still forbidden.The decalogue may still not be the âcodifiedâ law, but it still lists forbidden practices.
Or perhaps you can list which of the Ten Commandments you and/or Pastor Stanley believe we are free to disobey. I predict at most you will say the 4th.
To summarize:
i) It is still in effect
ii) We are now in the sabbath eternally (Hebrews teaches this, IMO)
iii) It is no longer in effect
What is Stanley saying beyond the obvious, apart from possibly stating that the Sabbath is no longer in effect?
[1] There are the nutjob theonomists who want to reinstitute the Jewish civil law including stonings. But they are outliers.
David, which one of the 10 commandments can a person break, other than keeping holy the period from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, while still keeping the new commandment that Jesus gave to love one another in a way that shows we are his disciples?
So you believe that a divorced person is committing adultery against his or her ex?
Jesus is our passover.
Not all, but certainly many, as I have been trying to explain with examples. What the all-or-nothing, black and white thinking anyway? What is up with that?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.