Assuming Continuity?

christianyouth · #1 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 10:46 AM

Issues on Tithing, the Sabbath, and I'm sure others, all come down to assuming that an OT principle or commandment is binding unless it is clearly abrogated in the New Testament. But talking with my Dispensationalist friends, they think that unless the New Testament endorses an OT principle/commandment , that principle is no longer true.

How can I demonstrate biblically or logically that we as Christians need to assume continuity between the OT and NT? That we need to ask, "Where is this principle done away with in the NT", not, "Where is this principle endorsed in the NT".

Thanks all, looking forward to the responses.

Joshua · #2 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 10:53 AM

Actually, I would just twist it around on your dispy friends, and ask them to prove biblically and logically why they think something that God has commanded in the past needs to be restated. IMHO, the burden of proof lies with them.

AV1611 · #3 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

How can I demonstrate biblically or logically that we as Christians need to assume continuity between the OT and NT?

I don't think that such a debate can help, in and of itself. By which I mean, they will be coming to Scripture and your debate with certain presuppositions which you do not hold. Hence I would start at the beginning and show how the Scriptures unfold. Depending on their level I would suggest According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible

satz · #4 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 11:02 AM

To be honest, I think both assumptions are unhelpful.

When God says things once, he does not need to repeat himself, but the bible is pretty clear that there is a distinction between the old and new covenants and portions of the Old Testament were meant specifically for the jewish people.

Any particular issue needs to be looked at individually in light of the entire revelation of the bible.

FenderPriest · #5 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 11:04 AM

It also seems to me that in the nature of covenant making through the OT, the prior covenant made is assumed and included in the new covenant made (i.e. the covenant made with Abraham is assumed later in the covenant made with David, etc.). So, if this is the case with covenants, the new and final covenant in Christ would assume all parts of the old ones with directives of things changed (ie. animal purity, etc.). Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be the tenor and crescendo of Scripture regarding covenants.

BobVigneault · #6 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 11:30 AM

The continuity of the covenant is endorsed here:

Quote:

Psalm 105:8-10: 7 He is the Lord our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
8 He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
9 the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
10 which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant

and here:

Quote:

Galatians3:7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

The continuity of salvation by faith is endorsed here:

Quote:

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

After that we only need to make a distinction between God's commandments and the temporarily binding Levitical ritual and ceremonial laws. The Sabbath is an easy one because that is a creation ordinance. The entire decalogue is endorsed in the NT. Tithing is a bit more challenging and it will be pretty hard to form a dogmatic teaching on it.

Poimen · #7 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 11:56 AM

Everybody assumes continuity; the degree to which they do so is the real question.

If the dispensationalist (unless he is a Bullinger type) opens his New Testament he will find a story about a Jewish Messiah who has come to save His people. (Matthew 1:21) As he reads that story (and the other parallel accounts) he will find that this Jewish Messiah came to bring his message to the world (Matthew 28:19ff.) of which, in part, proclaimed to the Jewish people that "the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it" (Matthew 21:43)

So unless he is willing to give up on the many prophecies and pictures of the OT that point us to Christ, he or she will already assume some continuity and you simply have to gently point that out and continue to show them from the New Testament that this message is confirmed on every page.

SolaScriptura · #8 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 12:00 PM

I think that simply saying “The burden of proof lies with them” is most unhelpful when talking to them. After all, the New Testament DOES say things like…

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. (Eph 2:14-15a)

Hebrews declares that the Old Covenant is “obsolete.” (Heb 8:13)

The reason this is a big deal in matters such as tithing and Sabbath observance is because we may find precedence for these ideas prior to the giving of the Law, but their prescription is not found until the Law.

Of course, we Reformed folk don’t necessarily think that passages such as those I mentioned above mean what the dispensationalists think they mean, but to be honest, at a first glance reading, it DOES seem like these passages say that the Law – with its regulations – is no longer in effect, and if that is the case, then it isn't unreasonable for them to maintain that for any precept contained in that Law to still have prescriptive force then it would in fact need to be reasserted in our own covenant.

So while you’re here amongst a sympathetic crowd you can make assertions about this, but if you want to win over their heart and mind in an argument then you need to address their proof-texts.

And just a head's up... just because you can trace the idea of continuity in terms of God saving people by grace or a promise to send a Messiah to be the Savior of the world, does NOT mean that you simulataneously prove that God's covenantally prescribed legal requirements for His people remain the same in both the Old and New Covenants.

Joshua · #9 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

I think that simply saying “The burden of proof lies with them” is most unhelpful when talking to them.

R Harris · #10 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Hebrews declares that the Old Covenant is “obsolete.” (Heb 8:13)

Until the temple is rebuilt and the old covenant rituals are re-established during the Great Tribulation, right?

blhowes · #11 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

I think that simply saying “The burden of proof lies with them” is most unhelpful when talking to them.

Very nicely put. Looks like you left Ben speechless.

Joshua · #12 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:07 PM

Thanks, Bob. It took me less than a minute to come up with that special rebuttal.

BobVigneault · #13 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Great job Josh. I think I might have thrown in a 'neener, neener, neener', but be ready with a "I know you are, but what am I" just in case he has a name ready for you. You've come a long way in your forensic techniques. I love ya.

christianyouth · #14 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

When God says things once, he does not need to repeat himself, but the bible is pretty clear that there is a distinction between the old and new covenants and portions of the Old Testament were meant specifically for the jewish people.

How can I discern then what things were just for the Jewish people?

SolaScriptura · #15 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

When God says things once, he does not need to repeat himself, but the bible is pretty clear that there is a distinction between the old and new covenants and portions of the Old Testament were meant specifically for the jewish people.

How can I discern then what things were just for the Jewish people?

A good rule of thumb is: If it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, or just plain "uncool" then it is unquestionably for the Jewish people!

christianyouth · #16 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:23 PM

Those verses are very helpful. Thanks, Bob.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

After that we only need to make a distinction between God's commandments and the temporarily binding Levitical ritual and ceremonial laws. The Sabbath is an easy one because that is a creation ordinance. The entire decalogue is endorsed in the NT. Tithing is a bit more challenging and it will be pretty hard to form a dogmatic teaching on it.

How do I make this distinction? How can I identify the temporarily binding Levitical ceremonial laws?

christianyouth · #17 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

When God says things once, he does not need to repeat himself, but the bible is pretty clear that there is a distinction between the old and new covenants and portions of the Old Testament were meant specifically for the jewish people.

How can I discern then what things were just for the Jewish people?

A good rule of thumb is: If it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, or just plain "uncool" then it is unquestionably for the Jewish people!

Haha, that's true though! Most of my Dispy friends have no problem with the promises in the OT given to the Jews for prosperity, continual blessing, protection, etc. But when it comes to tithing or the Sabbath, "Oh, those were just for the Jews."

blhowes · #18 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Great job Josh. I think I might have thrown in a 'neener, neener, neener', but be ready with a "I know you are, but what am I" just in case he has a name ready for you. You've come a long way in your forensic techniques. I love ya.

BobVigneault · #19 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:33 PM

The ceremonial laws were shadows and pictures of Christ and were transformed when Christ came. These were the whole sacrificial system and cleanliness laws. Ben is partly right in that practicality will tell you that some of these laws are not binding. As an example, go to your pastor and show him a boil and see what he says. Ewwww!

I don't believe there is any formula. This takes study and discernment. There are excellent books on the matter.

Joshua · #20 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Great job Josh. I think I might have thrown in a 'neener, neener, neener', but be ready with a "I know you are, but what am I" just in case he has a name ready for you. You've come a long way in your forensic techniques. I love ya.

Thanks, other Bob.