Are the Gospels and part of Acts Old Testament or New Testament?
The first four Gospels and even a portion of Acts are more Old Testament than New Testament, because they extend the Old Testament promises and Abrahamic covenant looking forward to fulfillment. The usual division between Old and New Testaments at that point obscures this continuity.
Les teaches that we must throw off the brainwashing that the Bible is divided at the Old and New Testament. He explains that the first four Gospels and even part of the book of Acts are still really more Old Testament than New, since they are an extension of all the Old Testament promises looking forward to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. This covenant line keeps coming from Genesis into the New Testament. Les also says much confusion in Christendom exists because people refuse to see the difference between God dealing with Israel on the basis of the covenants and His dealing with Gentiles on the basis of grace.
Why are the Gospels and part of Acts considered more Old Testament than New Testament?
The Gospels and early Acts are considered more Old Testament than New because they extend the Old Testament covenants and promises, especially the Abrahamic covenant, while looking forward to its fulfillment. They reflect God dealing with Israel on a covenant basis rather than the later grace-based dealing with Gentiles.
How can the first four Gospel accounts and part of Acts be considered more Old Testament than New Testament?
The first four Gospels and part of Acts are more Old Testament than New because they are an extension of Old Testament promises, especially the Abrahamic covenant, still looking forward to its fulfillment. They reflect God dealing with Israel on the basis of covenants rather than His later dealings with Gentiles on the basis of grace.