Imagine going to your favorite coffee shop to get your morning pick-me-up and witnessing the following conversation. Glancing up from your phone while standing in line, you listen to the rather bubbly person in front of you begin to place their order.
I’d like a tall caramel latte with two pumps of vanilla, some chocolate sprinkles, whipped cream, and then a little pumpkin spice to top it all off. Oh, and no cup please!
Observing the barista’s astonished response, you can’t help thinking that perhaps you both misheard what the person ordering said. And after a bewildering back and forth between them, with the server attempting to clarify what type of container they would like their ooey gooey concoction placed in, the customer bats their eyes and says,
Well, I just don’t like cups, they’re too rigid and constraining. I want my drink without all of the baggage that cups bring. They just limit the experience!
Now, if you think that scenario sounds too far out to imagine, think again. Because although it’s obviously imaginary and just an analogy, it’s an intellectual equivalent to what many professing believers in Jesus Christ seem to be attempting to do regarding their faith.
In Your Inbox
It’s as if some today want to embrace Jesus and imbibe his teachings, while at the same time jettisoning the encapsulating framework surrounding the very reasons anyone would even need a relationship with the risen Christ! This framework is, of course, the Old Testament.
New Testament Christians?
And not only is this seen in run-of-the-mill individuals who seem to want to distance themselves from Old Testament teachings, but even many Bible colleges, seminaries, and prominent pastors are trending toward what I’ll simply refer to as “New Testament Christianity.”
Now when I say, “New Testament Christianity,” I’m not really referring to a specific, systematized group such as a denominational organization or a specific body of believers that hold to a particular creedal confession, etc. Rather, it’s more like a movement among professing believers with a seemingly more modern mindset who appear to want to distance themselves, in an overarching authoritative sense, from biblical history prior to Christ’s coming.
I have actually spoken with people in person and dialoged with several on our AiG–CA Facebook page who identify as such. And what typifies people involved in this way of thinking is a seeming attempt to deflect from the plain reading of several specific Old Testament passages, or in some cases, entire sections of the Bible—particularly Genesis 1–11.
And unfortunately, in my experience, once they begin down this road, it is extremely rare to see them backtrack toward a staunch defense of the Old Testament. Rather, it almost always results in a further distancing from it.
Exhibit A: Andy Stanley
A well-known example would be Pastor Andy Stanley, who’s made several statements regarding his opinion of how he believes Christians should approach their handling of the Old Testament and why.
One such statement was made during a 2017 interview with Russell Moore, where Stanley encouraged his listeners to emphasize Jesus’ resurrection when witnessing to people, while simultaneously taking their focus off “the Bible.” And what parts of the Bible did he mention specifically?
I would ask preachers and pastors and student pastors in their communications to get the spotlight off the Bible and back on the resurrection….
When you’re dealing with secular people, as soon as you say “the Bible,” everybody now knows all the problems with the Bible. And when I say problems, the problems in terms of the culture’s view of the Bible, in terms of six-day creation, no geological evidence for a worldwide Flood, and there’s no evidence for the Exodus….And when they, in their minds, can discredit parts, it discredits the whole….
Now to be fair, Stanley affirmed his personal belief in the inspiration of all of the Bible at that time, and stated he encouraged this approach predominantly because of more pragmatic reasons. But you will notice that in his examples of “problems with the Bible,” he only referenced Old Testament events.
Apparently, he had come to believe and begun to promote this methodology some time before, because in a sermon a year earlier, he’d made this statement.
For the first 300 years, the debate centered on an event, not a book. The question for the first 300 years was not: Is the Bible true?…The question was: Did Jesus rise from the dead? And Matthew said, “Oh yes, He did,” and Mark said, “Oh yes, He did,” and Luke said, “Oh yes, He did,” and John said, “Oh yes, He did,” and Peter said, “Oh yes, He did,” and James the brother of Jesus said, “Oh yes, He did.”
Here you’ll notice he is mentioning the resurrection event and quoting the testimonies from New Testament characters. Of course, those testimonies regarding that event come from the Bible, and the secular world tends to lump the entire Bible together anyway. So, the question of whether the Bible is true or not is still the issue.
In addition, a year after his interview with Moore, Stanley made another rather startling comment in a sermon series encouraging those who’ve left the church to reconsider Christianity. In it, he announced that Christians need to “unhitch” the Old Testament from their understanding of the faith, which he described as meaning Christians should basically ignore the Old Testament and focus solely on the resurrection of Jesus Christ, especially in evangelism.
WWJD?
But of course, the ultimate problem with this way of thinking is that it is in direct opposition to how Jesus taught during his earthly ministry! Jesus quoted the Old Testament as his ultimate authority whenever he said, “It is written” or “Have you not read?” and Scripture mentions how:
Mathew 7:28–29 KJV – “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”
Again, Stanley (like many “New Testament Christians”) seems to always want to steer people away from the Old Testament with comments such as, “Jesus’ new covenant…can stand on its own two nail-scarred resurrection feet. It does not need propping up by the Jewish scriptures” (emphasis mine).
But Jesus did the opposite, he actually warned people (this is recorded in the New Testament, by the way) that belief in the Torah was linked to belief in his teachings directly (not the other way around) when he said,
John 5:46–47 KJV – “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
So, rather than trying to avoid the Old Testament, we should be doubling down and engaging in ways to help people understand they can trust the Old Testament from the very first verse—particularly Genesis 1-11 which is the seedbed of all Christian doctrines.
The Seedbed of Christianity
For example, take just three topics—marriage, gender, and sanctity of life. These are huge cultural issues the church is dealing with today. To uphold and present the biblical defense of traditional marriage (one man with one woman), male and female gender roles, and the right to life of the unborn and infirm, one has to trace their origin back to the book of Genesis.
But of course, Stanley is correct in his observation that the world has built up a massive amount of negativity and doubt against the acceptance of Genesis as plainly written in order to discount its credibility. They understand it is foundational to Christianity and that “if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).
And the reason they’ve been able to do so is that for the most part, the church hasn’t taught its people how to defend against the arguments skeptics have built up, particularly those coming from the secular scientific perspective concerning old earth geological perspectives and the story of evolution as an explanation of how life supposedly evolved with no Creator required.
But instead of avoiding the Old Testament like Stanley recommends, why not help people understand that the creation account as written does not contradict science, how there is great explanatory power in the flood narrative in relation to the rocks and fossils we see all over the earth, and that events like the exodus (recorded by Moses) really happened!
After all, Jesus made the link between the spiritual and the physical world when he spoke to Nicodemus and said,
John 3:12 KJV – “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”
And Jesus couldn’t have been more clear in defending biblical authority and the truth of his teachings being connected to the authenticity of the Old Testament as when he told the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19–31.
In it, both Lazarus (a beggar) and the rich man (who mistreated Lazarus in life) die. Lazarus is comforted, while the rich man suffers torment. So the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to his five still-living brothers so they won’t suffer the same fate. And what was the answer?
Luke 16:31 KJV – “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
Of course, the phrase “Moses and the Prophets” refers to the Old Testament—the Bible of Jesus’ day. And what Jesus is teaching here is that a resurrection (the exact event Stanley says Christians should be focusing on) won’t be sufficient to convince those who won’t “hear” Moses and the Prophets (the Old Testament).
Nothing New Under the Sun
Not surprisingly, today’s New Testament Christians’ approach of trying to distance themselves from the framework of the Old Testament while wishing to hold onto the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament isn’t a new tactic whatsoever. It’s been tried and has failed continuously ever since the idea of long ages and the story of evolution were popularized in the 1800s.
Just look at the following statement from Thomas Huxley (nicknamed “Darwin’s bulldog” because of his defense of the story of evolution to justify his atheistic faith) in 1897. He clearly saw through the Christians of his day who had attempted the same method, and he called them out on it publicly.
My utmost ingenuity does not enable me to discover a flaw in the argument thus briefly summarized. I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them.
Answering the Questions of the Day
Trying to divert attention away from the questions people have about the authenticity and authority of Scripture in any area is in opposition to the command we see in 1 Peter 3:15 where we are told we should have answers for our faith. In doing so we honor our Lord Jesus.
1 Peter 3:15 KJV – “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”
Attempting to focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection (the reason why those who put their faith and trust in Christ can be saved) while avoiding questions from the people who are legitimately wondering how all the “races” of people could possibly have come from one man (Adam, who is the reason why we need salvation in the first place) makes no sense.
Acts 17:26 KJV – “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”
Romans 5:12 KJV – “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
It seems confusing to most to sidestep people’s questions regarding the legitimacy of the flood account (in light of the rocks and fossils found worldwide and the concern of how Noah could have possibly put all the animals on the ark) when the New Testament writers appear to have taken the account as real history.
Matthew 24:37–39 KJV – “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
Hebrews 11:7 KJV – “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”
Just like the bewildered barista trying to comprehend how on earth someone could want their drink without a cup to put it in, so too is a befuddled world looking at Christians who want the good news of Jesus and the resurrection without having a solid vessel surrounding it that contains and explains the bad news of why Christ needed to come in the first place.
The bottom line is that there’s logically no such thing as a “New Testament Christian” because Christians are followers of Jesus, and Jesus didn’t model that approach whatsoever. So if someone says to you, “I’m a New Testament Christian,” just remind them that Jesus wasn’t!
