Posted on 01/07/2014 1:55:56 PM PST by Gamecock
I find it frustrating when I read or hear columnists, pundits, or journalists dismiss Christians as inconsistent because "they pick and choose which of the rules in the Bible to obey." Most often I hear, "Christians ignore lots of Old Testament texts---about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath, not wearing garments woven with two kinds of material and so on. Then they condemn homosexuality. Aren't you just picking and choosing what you want to believe from the Bible?"
I don't expect everyone to understand that the whole Bible is about Jesus and God's plan to redeem his people, but I vainly hope that one day someone will access their common sense (or at least talk to an informed theological adviser) before leveling the charge of inconsistency.
First, it's not only the Old Testament that has proscriptions about homosexuality. The New Testament has plenty to say about it as well. Even Jesus says, in his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-12, that the original design of God was for one man and one woman to be united as one flesh, and failing that (v. 12), persons should abstain from marriage and sex.
However, let's get back to considering the larger issue of inconsistency regarding things mentioned in the Old Testament no longer practiced by the New Testament people of God. Most Christians don't know what to say when confronted about this issue. Here's a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.
The Old Testament devotes a good amount of space to describing the various sacrifices offered in the tabernacle (and later temple) to atone for sin so that worshipers could approach a holy God. There was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can't go into God's presence without purification.
But even in the Old Testament, many writers hinted that the sacrifices and the temple worship regulations pointed forward to something beyond them (cf. 1 Sam. 15:21-22; Ps. 50:12-15; 51:17; Hos. 6:6). When Christ appeared he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and he ignored the Old Testament cleanliness laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.
The reason is clear. When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us clean.
The entire book of Hebrews explains that the Old Testament ceremonial laws were not so much abolished as fulfilled by Christ. Whenever we pray "in Jesus name" we "have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). It would, therefore, be deeply inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible as a whole if we continued to follow the ceremonial laws.
The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament. Paul makes it clear in places like Romans 13:8ff that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us. In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship, but not how we live. The moral law outlines God's own character---his integrity, love, and faithfulness. And so everything the Old Testament says about loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, generosity with our possessions, social relationships, and commitment to our family is still in force. The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethic of the Old Testament is re-stated throughout the New Testament (Matt. 5:27-30; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). If the New Testament has reaffirmed a commandment, then it is still in force for us today.
The New Testament explains another change between the testaments. Sins continue to be sins---but the penalties change. In the Old Testament sins like adultery or incest were punishable with civil sanctions like execution. This is because at that time God's people constituted a nation-state, and so all sins had civil penalties.
But in the New Testament the people of God are an assembly of churches all over the world, living under many different governments. The church is not a civil government, and so sins are dealt with by exhortation and, at worst, exclusion from membership. This is how Paul deals with a case of incest in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:1ff. and 2 Cor. 2:7-11). Why this change? Under Christ, the gospel is not confined to a single nation---it has been released to go into all cultures and peoples.
Once you grant the main premise of the Bible---about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation---then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ, the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mishmash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.
So where does this leave us? There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity's basic thesis---you don't believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God---and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything. But you can't say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones.
One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: "Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?" If you are asked, "Why do you say that?" you could respond, "If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can't follow all the 'clean laws' of diet and practice, and I can't offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ's death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others."
“Right... meat which may be eaten by MAN.”
Trust me, bacon can be eaten by man in VAST quantities.
“Then there is no cause to accuse me either.”
Remember, it was you who started to falsely claim that we are obligated to keep the whole law of Moses. Though, apparently, you do not really mean that, re: circumcision, and the cleanliness and other basis behind the dietary and non-touching laws.
So when you said “all the law,” you really only meant “as I understand it, and not as it is written.”
“That is not true. The Torah very specifically tells me what IS good for me to eat.”
The law of Moses only tells you what the Jews are to eat, not Gentiles.
Deu 14:21 Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
Though, even the Jews are under the same liberty as Christians are today.
“I said no such thing. I don’t consider them to be optional.”
Then you deny the liberty you just affirmed a moment ago, as, since it is not “optional,” then it follows that we HAVE to do it as a matter of law, and those who do not follow it are unclean according to the law and are in rebellion against God.
Though you also say that the dietary and other laws are just to do with “health” reasons, and that that is the real “spirit” of the law. If we accept your claim rather than what the scripture actually teaches is their purpose, then as long as I cook my bacon well then I can eat it all I want, as it fulfilled the law “to the spirit.”
“The passage you quote only says that an uncircumcised male must be circumcised in order to participate in the passover.... but it is not required of them.”
Keep your arguments straight. Recall you claimed that the reason why Paul says that we are not to be circumcised, is because Paul only wants children to be circumcised, which you claim is taught in the scripture. You also claimed that we are supposed to be celebrating passover. The scripture directly teaches that circumcision is required, of all males, whether adult or not, otherwise they cannot participate in the Passover at all. Thus circumcision is absolutely required of all males, if what you claim is true.
“And Abraham was not circumcised when the promise was given.”
Abraham was immediately circumcised when God commanded Him to do it, along with the 318+ members of his house (whoever of that number were male) of whatever age:
Gen 17:23 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
“No the original question was whether a man had to be circumcised in order to be saved, thus keeping the singular ‘law’ of Moses.”
There is no “singular” in it, as the scripture says “circumcision AND the law of Moses.”
You’ve been told this many times, but you choose to ignore it.
“I said ‘strangled meat’ is inferred...”
You cited Acts 15 in response to Paul allowing meats sacrificed to idols. Acts 15 includes meats offered to idols as well as meats strangled, which Paul here allows (the former) by name. But it also includes meats “strangled,” since the Gentiles did not keep Kosher in the way they prepared meals. As anything that leaves the blood stagnated in the body is called “strangled,” and is therefore forbidden by the Jewish law as well, yet Paul here allows it. Thus the prohibition of the council was only for “conscience” sake as well, and not in regards to their true liberty.
“I am quite familiar with the church fathers,”
You didn’t even know that the Jews circumcised adult male converts, why would I then believe you that you are familiar with the church fathers? If you actually took the time to read them, you would have to believe that the Romanists left in tons of information hostile to their religion, but just erased all the ones pertaining to your religious cult.
“You are incorrect - the Nazarenes are distinct from the Ebionites, are non-trinitarian Torah-keepers and extend well into the twelfth century. “
The Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same group, and had identical teachings, even if some of the church fathers mistakenly separated the two. Most correctly identified them as the same. Though, you just outed yourself by mentioning that you look up to a non-Trinitarian group. Any group that does not believe in the Trinity is considered a cult by Christian standards.
“Needless to say, I remain unconvinced.”
How could I possibly convince a Sophist who isn’t even Christian? If one does not uphold the Trinity, then it is impossible for one to claim they are a member of the body of Christ.
“and the rigid imposition of regulations thereof by the same are what is at question in my opinion”
Your opinion is irrelevant. It is unsupported and even contradicted directly in the text, which refers to whatever it is that Men eat, whether Jew or Gentile alike.
“I know that. But the Scripture that was at hand was the Tanakh.”
How do you say “I know that,” and then oppose it the next sentence? If you just agreed with me, then you just agreed that the letters on the paper that Paul or Peter or John had just written was considered scripture, right then and there, the very instant they wrote it. You agree that the Gospels are scripture, which the Nazerenes/Ebionites rejected. Thus you do “not know it.” You’re just conceding your absurd assertions and then repeating them anyway.
“Accepted, as I said. But their writings were not widely disseminated”
It doesn’t matter if it was widely disseminated or not, thoough you’re wrong anyway about it. Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus, no doubt in on the conspiracy, quoted from virtually every book in the New Testament, and they wrote to churches literate in the scripture, even specifically, citing particular books and passages quite liberally that they were in possession of.
“yes... ALL Scripture... to include the never changing, everlasting Torah.”
Except circumcision, apparently, that changed. And the cleanliness consequences of the scripture, that changed, and can be ignored freely.
“THAT is another foremost inconsistency of Christianity. “
So non-Christians criticize Christianity. So what else is new?
” And how does all that jibe with the prophets, who unequivically prove you wrong”
YOUR Prophets maybe. The ones in the Bible are all on my side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.