Is the OT Binding on us Today?

I guess I should have been a little more clear. There is no OT type that ties baptism into eternal salvation. There are types of baptism in the OT. The Red Sea crossing being the most famous if you will.

Baptism in the OT is always shown to be after salvation has occurred.

TCGreek don't blow a gasket I was merely giving an example that was timely as per other discussions. Wasn't trying ti incite anything.

 

I ate a few chapters and I found that the fiber helped it not to be so binding.

 

1 Peter 3

18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

 

Glad it is all cleared out - 'er I mean all cleared up, now. :tonofbricks:

Ed

 

Does that mean we're supposed to still be smiting witches?
I'm serious.

When you say "binding on us today", what do you mean?
And to what extent?

 

It seems to me that the OT being binding doesn't necessarily follow from it being good for teaching. For example, I can look at God's laws and see His wisdom in proscribing rules of cleanliness to be followed that would have simply been commanded rituals to the people of the day, but of which we can now see the practical benefits. This teaches me a great deal about the nature of God and the wisdom of His commandments without presuming that the OT law is still binding today.

 

1. Fair enough. Could you please elaborate on your position?

2. Agreed.

3. I don't think they're held over from the OT.

4. For which?

 

1. Since we agree that it would not be binding as a Law Book, on what grounds would it be binding in principle?

2. I'm not convinced that tithing is mandated in the NT, and I'm not sure what the concern is with instrumental music. I don't hold that the only forms of acceptable worship are those mentioned in scripture, so that's not an issue for me. But perhaps you were going somewhere else with it?

 

tithing

2 Corinthians 9

Sowing Generously
6Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9As it is written:
"He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor;
his righteousness endures forever."[Psalm 112:9]

 

1/2/3. I certainly agree that principles revealed in the OT remain true. But that does not mean that we know them to be true because they were revealed in the OT.

4. Indeed, but I think it's consistent with my personal position.

5. Agreed, but someone else will have to take that up.

 

Who gets to determine what the "principles" are? Often we find the specifics in the Law eliminated, "principles" dervied, new specifics derived from the "principles," then new laws misapplied upon the church that has nothing in context with the original Law that never had anything to do with the church.

For tithing, we go to both the OT and the NT, and find that tithing has not one iota--zilch, zero, nada--to do with the church. Both the OT and the NT demonstrate certain musical instruments: mainly psaltry (stringed instruments), tamborines, etc.

 

Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16. Look at the Greek.

 

You mean 2 Tim 3:16-17, yes? Just trying to be clear.