Out with the Old, In with the New
Normally I'd just address this in a comment, but my good friend and associate Shannon left some excellent commentary on the comments for this post. Most of it I agree with, and I feel that it's worth posting in its own right; there's one section though (in brackets) that I'd like to address.
Regarding the section in brackets, I think that "reject" may be too strong a word to use in this case. I don't think that Paul, or any educated Christian, rejects the Law; I think they merely view it in its proper context. Some of the Law is still very relevant, but much of it was initiated by God specifically to preserve the health and well-being of the Hebrews. However, the situation had changed dramatically by the first century AD. Various elements of the Law that were specifically aimed at maintaining the health and welfare of several thousand people wandering in the Sinai Desert were now obsolete. So, when one considers this, it's not out of line for Paul to have believed that emphasis on a new Law was more important.
The Old Testament is still important; among other things, it gives us a better context with which to understand what preceded our covenant with Christ. The Old Testament is a handbook in holiness. It is the foundation for the covenant we are now in; though the old covenant is closed, the new covenant cannot be fully appreciated or understood without careful study of the old. Thus, I don't believe that Paul was "rejecting" the Old Testament/covenant; I think he was merely pointing out that Christ's work had changed the requirements for making oneself acceptable in the eyes of God. Also, while we're no longer required to do everything prescribed by the Old Testament, I would contend that doing so anyway would almost certainly lead to a much healthier lifestyle than most people in the world enjoy now.
So, while I absolutely agree with the things you said, Shannon, I still contend that a bedrock requirement of the Christian faith is acceptance of the legitimacy of the Bible, without equivocation. As intelligent as people think they are, the Bible becomes worthless if we decide to pick and choose in order to make our faith more convenient. In about nine years of fairly in-depth study on the subject, I have never found any evidence that the Bible is not a trustworthy document; when studied in context, it is internally consistent and, in my opinion at least, reliable as an instructional guide in both good living and spiritual redemption.
Kenya dig it?
I guess that's the problem with the bible - it has never and will never exist in a vacuum. your views of it as such make me wonder if you're becoming more fundamental in your views Fly.
also re: your statement: If you want to be a Christian, you don't have the option of not buying into the Bible; if you reject the Bible, in any part, then you're not a Christian.
[While I appreciate things being as cut and dry as you've presented them this may be a more difficult position to than you realize. As 21st century Non-Jewish Christians there are many parts of the bible that we've all rejected. Hell, Paul rejects almost half of the old testament (the law) in light of Christ. So you'd be very hard pressed to find any non-fundementalist christian/theologian/biblical scholar who would affirm the statement you just made.]
That being said, I think I understand "the spirit" of what you wrote, while I might disagree with "the letter" of what you wrote. Namely, that Christ was clear - following him involves a cost. The cost is death, which we have historically sybolized in our baptism. The reward of course is life - we come out of the water a new life.
Too many people seem to want to life part without embracing the death that most come also. This is seen all around us! Our culture wants things quick easy and painless and if there are parts in the bible that are not quick and easy the most obvious solution is to just throw them out and focus on the easy parts. I think this is what bothers you.
Regarding the section in brackets, I think that "reject" may be too strong a word to use in this case. I don't think that Paul, or any educated Christian, rejects the Law; I think they merely view it in its proper context. Some of the Law is still very relevant, but much of it was initiated by God specifically to preserve the health and well-being of the Hebrews. However, the situation had changed dramatically by the first century AD. Various elements of the Law that were specifically aimed at maintaining the health and welfare of several thousand people wandering in the Sinai Desert were now obsolete. So, when one considers this, it's not out of line for Paul to have believed that emphasis on a new Law was more important.
The Old Testament is still important; among other things, it gives us a better context with which to understand what preceded our covenant with Christ. The Old Testament is a handbook in holiness. It is the foundation for the covenant we are now in; though the old covenant is closed, the new covenant cannot be fully appreciated or understood without careful study of the old. Thus, I don't believe that Paul was "rejecting" the Old Testament/covenant; I think he was merely pointing out that Christ's work had changed the requirements for making oneself acceptable in the eyes of God. Also, while we're no longer required to do everything prescribed by the Old Testament, I would contend that doing so anyway would almost certainly lead to a much healthier lifestyle than most people in the world enjoy now.
So, while I absolutely agree with the things you said, Shannon, I still contend that a bedrock requirement of the Christian faith is acceptance of the legitimacy of the Bible, without equivocation. As intelligent as people think they are, the Bible becomes worthless if we decide to pick and choose in order to make our faith more convenient. In about nine years of fairly in-depth study on the subject, I have never found any evidence that the Bible is not a trustworthy document; when studied in context, it is internally consistent and, in my opinion at least, reliable as an instructional guide in both good living and spiritual redemption.
Kenya dig it?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home