How do you discern which parts of the New Testament are Applicable for Christians today?

[MaxPC]

First and foremost, a note: P+T asked for our individual thoughts, hence I write in the first person. I did not nor do I see it as launch point for debate nor contention. These are merely my experiences and my perception of the initial OP query.

I believe ALL of the NT is applicable and prescriptive. Reason: there are absolutely no new behaviors today that did not exist in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

I do not believe that we can pick and choose items from the NT like a smorgasbord. The NT is an integrated whole teaching that cannot be picked apart for the savory bits and leaving out the parts we do not like as though we are fussy children. I take very seriously the warning in Revelation.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How might a person apply this prescriptively other than to do just that?

Within context and by extension, this directive refers to those who deliberately go about in public trying to look "holy" in order to gain public approval (we call it the sin of seeking human respect). A modern equivalent of this is to bathe and wash one's hair, and to wear clean clothing instead of looking bedraggled and pitiful.

MAX, I agree with what you're saying. However one example is the NT teachings on slavery, as if itbis acceptable. Is it acceptable today?

Also,, I have been taught that the passage in Revelation you quoted, applies to Revelation specifically. The prophetic book of Revelation. Thoughts?

Also if that passage does apply to all of OT & NT, what about the apocryphal books that were taken out of OT by protestants?

Re slavery, the context is important (another reason why we should look at the NT as an integrated whole.) Slavery is a societal characteristic. The teachings on slavery are addressed to slaves and how they are function as Christians in that state in life. It is not a support of slavery but rather addressing the individual's behaviors should they find themselves in slavery. Likewise the NT addresses slave owner's behaviors should one become a Christian and seek to follow Jesus. A modern day equivalent may be someone who is in supervisory job in a company that pays low wages. How should he treat the employees? The NT gives us plenty of clues.

Regarding Revelation: we see that verse as a final warning near the end of the Bible to avoid removing ANY of the accepted canon.

Regarding the Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha): As I see it God is still in charge of His warnings and consequences. He will be consistent in His Holy Will. It is my job to heed His warnings. Additionally, I recall there are Anabaptists who retained the Deuterocanonicals. One can still find copies of KJV that have them.
As always YMMV.

[Neto]

I believe ALL of the NT is applicable and prescriptive. Reason: there are absolutely no new behaviors today that did not exist in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

I do not believe that we can pick and choose items from the NT like a smorgasbord. The NT is an integrated whole teaching that cannot be picked apart for the savory bits and leaving out the parts we do not like as though we are fussy children. I take very seriously the warning in Revelation.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

MAX, I agree with what you're saying. However one example is the NT teachings on slavery, as if it is acceptable. Is it acceptable today?

Also,, I have been taught that the passage in Revelation you quoted, applies to Revelation specifically. The prophetic book of Revelation. Thoughts?

Also if that passage does apply to all of OT & NT, what about the apocryphal books that were taken out of OT by protestants?

If by "OT" you mean the Jewish Scriptures, then those books were never a part of the OT. They valued some of them especially as a record of history, but not on equal par with the Torah itself. I have read all of them, and I know that Menno Simons quoted from at least some of them, especially Sirach, which, as I understand, came the closest to being accepted by the Jews as Scripture. The book of Tobit is always referenced in Amish weddings, but it's a really strange story. (I don't understand German well enough to be helped by what the Amish preachers say about it, and it's been many years since I read it in English, so I won't say more.) Menno quotes from it at least twice, once commending Tobit for his patience, once in the context of teaching children well. He quotes from Sirach at least 2 dozen times.

[Sudsy]

I'm gonna throw in some thoughts to help guide the discussion.

Is it relevant?: does this passage provide any meaningful insight for Christians today on it's own? Regardless of whether (or how) this passage is applied, is it relevant to us, today, in our context? Or is its relevance mostly for people in a different context (time/place)?

Is it applicable?: Is this passage meant to be directly applied by Christians/churches in this age and place (And, by implication, by all Christians/churches in all ages and places)? Regardless of how is it applied (for example, headcoverings during all of life, or just for worship gathering), is it nonetheless applicable in some way to us today?

Is it prescriptive: I'm using this as a "stronger" version of "applicable". If this is not applied today by Christians/churches, does the failure to apply it constitute "sin". Does it constitute such great sin that we are Apostate if we do not apply it?

‐---------

For discussion purposes, this topic was originally exploring all of 1 Cor 14, a good passage that contains a variety of encouragement, exhortation, description, instruction, etc. Use that passage as an example or a diving board into the topic if it is helpful to do so.

I believe to look at 1 Cor 14 in context it is best to back up and start with 1 Cor 11. When it comes to the text of 1 Cor 14:34,35 here is a good study on 5 views including the view that some Anabaptists and some thers take on what this specific text is talking about. And for those who think this is a promotion of an egalitarian view, it isn't. This study is by a complementarian.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+1+ ... nPcu7RCVXY

Regarding this text, 1 Cor. 14:34,35 my answers to the above are -

Is it relevant ? If by 'on it's own' means looking at this text as isolated from 1 Cor 11- 1 Cor 14, my answer is 'no, it is not relevant '. Otherwise, yes, it is relevant today for churches that are operating in spiritual gifts.

Is it applicable ? - Yes, it is applicable today when rightly understood and applied to what women are to be silent about.

Is it perscriptive ? - No, I don't believe it is a heaven or hell issue. Can it be understood in a way that hinders both the Gospel and Christian growth ? Imo, it can and in some mis-interpretations, does.

[Sudsy]

Whoops.

[Sudsy]

First and foremost, a note: P+T asked for our individual thoughts, hence I write in the first person. I did not nor do I see it as launch point for debate nor contention. These are merely my experiences and my perception of the initial OP query.

I believe ALL of the NT is applicable and prescriptive. Reason: there are absolutely no new behaviors today that did not exist in the time of Jesus and the Apostles.

I do not believe that we can pick and choose items from the NT like a smorgasbord. The NT is an integrated whole teaching that cannot be picked apart for the savory bits and leaving out the parts we do not like as though we are fussy children. I take very seriously the warning in Revelation.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How might a person apply this prescriptively other than to do just that?

Within context and by extension, this directive refers to those who deliberately go about in public trying to look "holy" in order to gain public approval (we call it the sin of seeking human respect). A modern equivalent of this is to bathe and wash one's hair, and to wear clean clothing instead of looking bedraggled and pitiful.

MAX, I agree with what you're saying. However one example is the NT teachings on slavery, as if itbis acceptable. Is it acceptable today?

Also,, I have been taught that the passage in Revelation you quoted, applies to Revelation specifically. The prophetic book of Revelation. Thoughts?

Also if that passage does apply to all of OT & NT, what about the apocryphal books that were taken out of OT by protestants?

Re slavery, the context is important (another reason why we should look at the NT as an integrated whole.) Slavery is a societal characteristic. The teachings on slavery are addressed to slaves and how they are function as Christians in that state in life. It is not a support of slavery but rather addressing the individual's behaviors should they find themselves in slavery. Likewise the NT addresses slave owner's behaviors should one become a Christian and seek to follow Jesus. A modern day equivalent may be someone who is in supervisory job in a company that pays low wages. How should he treat the employees? The NT gives us plenty of clues.

Regarding Revelation: we see that verse as a final warning near the end of the Bible to avoid removing ANY of the accepted canon.

Regarding the Deuterocanonicals (Apocrypha): As I see it God is still in charge of His warnings and consequences. He will be consistent in His Holy Will. It is my job to heed His warnings. Additionally, I recall there are Anabaptists who retained the Deuterocanonicals. One can still find copies of KJV that have them.
As always YMMV.

Max, to the underlined. How do you consider that this warning is for the entire canon and is not just speaking of the Revelation ?

[barnhart]

My goal is to view the New Testament like the early church did. They found it relevant and applicable. They also found it prescriptive (your definition) except in areas where it doesn't claim to be. For example Jesus is recorded as saying "go wash in the pool of Siloam" yet they did not find this prescriptive according to your definition.

Maybe a better question would be at what point did it become acceptable to view the New Testament otherwise. 54AD? (Persecution of Nero) 313? (Constantine) 1096? (Crusades) 1776? (Constitutional democracy)

[MaxPC]

Max, to the underlined. How do you consider that this warning is for the entire canon and is not just speaking of the Revelation ?

Do you have a different interpretation?

[Ernie]

My goal is to view the New Testament like the early church did. They found it relevant and applicable. They also found it prescriptive (your definition) except in areas where it doesn't claim to be. For example Jesus is recorded as saying "go wash in the pool of Siloam" yet they did not find this prescriptive according to your definition.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

[ken_sylvania]

My goal is to view the New Testament like the early church did. They found it relevant and applicable. They also found it prescriptive (your definition) except in areas where it doesn't claim to be. For example Jesus is recorded as saying "go wash in the pool of Siloam" yet they did not find this prescriptive according to your definition.

What about washing our face and anointing our head before we fast? How do you view this command?

I believe the text says we should do that "when" we fast, not "before". Considering that washing the face and anointing the head was a part of daily hygiene, the command seems to be to continue normal hygiene without interruption so that most people would have no idea that you are fasting.
I guess a lot of people use hair gel of some sort to anoint their heads rather than olive oil. Washing the face seems fairly self explanatory.
But I do see this as prescriptive.

[Josh]

I have an associate who thinks it’s a good idea to use olive oil on your skin and that it helps repel sunburns and has other health benefits. He seems to be in great health so maybe he’s on to something.