• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When debating Christians, why can't I cite the OT?

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
This question is primarily aimed at any apologist who takes issue with citing the OT and would prefer that we use only the NT when discussing Christianity and morality. Not every apologist takes this stance of course, so if you don't, this thread isn't for you. ;)

So, for those of you who claim that morality comes from religion, my question is this: By what means do you decide that we ought to learn from the NT, and that we ought to disregard many passages from the OT?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I too would like to know, especially because Jesus himself is recorded, in three of the Gospels, to have said that he did not do away with the law, not a single word is to be eased up on, that anyone who does relax the laws will be considered among the least in Heaven, that it is easier to envision the end of the Earth than the end of the law, and the law is in full operation until all things are fulfilled, and obviously not all prophecies have been fulfilled, especially the ones about the return of Christ.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
From Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry


"Critics of the Bible often cite Old Testament instances of slavery, violence against homosexuals, wiping out nations, etc., as evidence of a morally inadequate set of rules. They will also often ask why present-day Christians don't follow these "barbaric" teachings today. They complain that Christians are inconsistent, and say that if we really follow the Bible then why don't we advocate such things as killing both homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21).

The reason we don't is because the Old Covenantal system that involved such harsh punishments has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).


Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde were constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah and to prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to "be at peace with one another," (Mark 9:50) and "with all men," (Rom. 12:18). Rom. 14:19 says, "pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." After all, "God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15).

However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing. We are to not participate in the sins of the world. Instead, we are to avoid them. We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13). Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 5:14). But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands -- as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1:26-28.

So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers, is because we're no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13)."
source

And as I understand Christian reasoning, only those OT pieces of morality that are mentioned (reconfirmed) in the New Testament remain valid. For instance, Romans 1:26-27 reconfirms the sin of homosexuality

(ERV)
26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.

.
 
Last edited:

RitalinOD

New Member
This question is primarily aimed at any apologist who takes issue with citing the OT and would prefer that we use only the NT when discussing Christianity and morality. Not every apologist takes this stance of course, so if you don't, this thread isn't for you. ;)

So, for those of you who claim that morality comes from religion, my question is this: By what means do you decide that we ought to learn from the NT, and that we ought to disregard many passages from the OT?

The art of Cherry Picking. It's impossible not to with books so full of contradictions.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
This question is primarily aimed at any apologist who takes issue with citing the OT and would prefer that we use only the NT when discussing Christianity and morality. Not every apologist takes this stance of course, so if you don't, this thread isn't for you. ;)

So, for those of you who claim that morality comes from religion, my question is this: By what means do you decide that we ought to learn from the NT, and that we ought to disregard many passages from the OT?

It is important to note that Adam and Eve and the idea of original sin is in the OT. If you do away with the entire OT, then you have made the torture and death of Jesus unnecessary.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
It never did. All that happens in Genesis is that two kids try to be independent and are forced to grow up because of it. That's it.

Actually, it was two kids, placed into a world where they don't know the rules, are punished for finding out what the rules are.
 
Top