The Folly of Red Letter "Christianity"

[Michael Z]

For those that are unfamiliar with the term "Red letter Christians", these are folks that primarily follow the words in red, i.e. the words of Jesus in the Gospels, and exclude the many or all teachings and words of Paul, Peter, and others.

I was watching one of my favorite bible teachers the other day and he pointed out something that explained a lot to me. His point was that the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were given by Jesus to the Jews. In fact, in Matthew 9 it states "Jesus taught in the synagogues" and in Matthew 10 Jesus stated "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." Also, the epistles of Paul and Peter were for the Gentiles, and for the believing Jews as well. What occurred to me was that Jesus did not have to address specific lifestyles and rules for living since the Jews already knew of these. Jesus did not have to address gay marriage when he spoke of marriage between a man and woman - the Jews were quite familiar with the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah! But Paul, on the other hand, was speaking to the Gentiles, the people who knew virtually nothing of the Jewish laws and history. Paul gave a summary of the important "lifestyle" guidelines to the ignorant Gentiles in verses such as 1 Corinthians 6 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." And Paul, as well as Jesus both made it abundantly clear that we are not saved by our works, but by Grace, so this was not another new version of the law. These guidelines were essential, and not only for the Gentiles, but also for the believing Jews. Likewise, the teachings of Jesus, which addressed heart attitudes in passages such as the Sermon on the Mount, were for both the believing Jew, and the believing Gentile.

Paul, was a messenger from God, so greatly needed that the Gospel could go forth to all the world. Excluding his teaching is a great recipe for trouble in the church.

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord proclaimed the Gospel in His incarnation and commissioned Paul to preach it after His cross, resurrection, & ascension. The commandments for living by faith were said by the Lord to the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-19 ( Matthew 19:16-31 for full context). Paul preached the same basic message for living by faith according to the Lord’s finished work for our salvation (Romans 13:8-10 in relation to Romans 13:1-14, in relation to the Lords work per John 3:16-21).

 

[Michael Z]

The Lord proclaimed the Gospel in His incarnation and commissioned Paul to preach it after His cross, resurrection, & ascension. The commandments for living by faith were said by the Lord to the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-19 ( Matthew 19:16-31 for full context). Paul preached the same basic message for living by faith according to the Lord’s finished work for our salvation (Romans 13:8-10 in relation to Romans 13:1-14, in relation to the Lords work per John 3:16-21).

Interesting reference. Here Jesus quotes 5 of the 10 Commandments. But then follows with statements that encompass the other 5, i.e. loving Jesus above all else.

 

[Laodicean60]

For those that are unfamiliar with the term "Red letter Christians", these are folks that primarily follow the words in red,

Lol, reread this and tell me what's wrong with this. Shaking head, I don't see anything wrong with that, lol.

Jesus's word trumps all the apostles. I have to think hard about what the Master said before I can understand His students.

and exclude the many or all teachings and words of Paul, Peter, and others.

But, please don't throw a mass accusation against brothers on what they know about scripture. Tribalism is everywhere there are a few who preach Paul to extremes also and we even twist scripture for our purposes.

 

[timf]

People like to see the world in monolithic terms. However, God created us and angels with free will. This means that we would rebel and God would offer different plans based on how recoverable we were. This "lens" of looking at the history of the world lets us see the words of Jesus in the context of the role of Israel.

Plan “F”?

God created heaven and earth perfect. This was plan “A” When Satan’s pride led him to rebel against God and take a third of the angles with him, God had plan “B”. When Adam and Eve sinned, plan “C” went into effect. However, just a few generations after Adam and Eve people became so wicked (amplified by angelic interference) that the world was destroyed with a flood and only eight people were saved. This brought us to plan “D”. However, with the Tower of Babel, it was apparent that a more direct means of getting people to know about their creation, God, and the need for faith a plan “E” was needed. The nation of Israel was supposed to be a nation of priests who would bring the knowledge of God to the whole world.

God put an awful lot of work into plan “E”. The Old Testament of the bible is almost all about What Israel was supposed to do, promises to Israel about the future, and a continual record of their disregard for God. Sending Jesus as the promised Messiah was the culmination of the plan of God to offer a way back to eternal life that was lost by Adam and Eve. Since Israel did not accept the kingdom offered by Jesus at his ministry to the nation, dramatic circumstances will be brought on earth such that a faithful remnant of Israel will be persuaded to received the kingdom. However, this cataclysmic event will not happen until after plan “F” has run its course.

The nation of Israel was supposed to receive the gospel of the kingdom and her king, Jesus, and subsequently bring the knowledge of God to the world. This knowledge instead was spread by those through the gospel of the grace of God introduced by Paul who was called to be an apostle to the gentiles. This might be called plan “F”. When the full number of the gentiles come in, plan “G” would be established where Jesus returns to earth and rules as king from Jerusalem for 1,000 years.

These various plans are not the result of God not having control (being all knowing he knew that we would fall short), but of his allowing humans and angles to have free will. The angels were created all at once and with knowledge. They made their choice all at once. Humans are born sequentially and in ignorance. As a result, God endures the evils that result from bad choices until he can harvest a “crop” of those that surrender to his will.

Some call these “plans” covenants or dispensations. However, these names can be misleading. The world “plan” can also be misleading. It does convey that God is in charge, however, it fails to convey that they might better be called opportunities. Each of these “plans” demonstrate that no matter what the circumstances, most people will ultimately reject God and seek to go their own way. God structured our redemption to be based on faith (trust). Trust is given to that which is true. Israel would keep their laws when they trusted God as a demonstration of faith. Today with plan “F” those who trust in Jesus and his payment on the cross for our sins are regenerated unto the eternal life that is in Christ, can have the Holy Spirit make them better people, and have access to the wisdom of God..

Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

 

[Jipsah]

Lol, reread this and tell me what's wrong with this. Shaking head, I don't see anything wrong with that, lol.

How are we to ignore the Old Testament? It provides endless opportunities for us to rediscover old heresies that have been largely forgotten, or to found new cults based on following discrete bits of the Law that appeal to us. And besides, most people who set out to read the entire Bible never get beyond Deuteronomy, so we shouldn't place too much importance on words that came from the mouth of God Himself, right?

Jesus's word trumps all the apostles.

One would hope, but that idea seems to be less common than you might expect. We humans like laws and rules and regulations to be obeyed, or at least given lip service. Christ only gave us two of those, and they're well-nigh impossible to follow. Way too vague for comfort

Tribalism is everywhere

Total digression here. Just talking to a friend/brother of mine about why we support our favorite football club. It came down to the fact that it has become our tribe. We can show up in London and we've got friends and brethren who we can call who'll treat us like family because we're all "proper 'Wall". Tribes are important on an emotional level; they're extended family... but they're not much good for discovering objective truth.

there are a few who preach Paul to extremes also and we even twist scripture for our purposes.

Sure. The Word of our Lord has to be our baseline. But somehow, especially for a lot of our Protestant (and yeah, as Anglo-Catholic I'm technically still a Protestant, but then...) seem to be drawn back o OT legalism, largely, IMO, because it provides specific laws to be obeyed, and thus give us solid "good/not good, righteous/not righteous"rules by which we can judge ourselves. "Love God and your neighbor" is too vague for comfort. We're never entirely sure we're up to scratch, and the safest bet is that we're not.

 

[timothyu]

It was mentioned of Paul 3x that he taught Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom for years on end, yet oddly such an important thing, if his teaching on it was even recorded, was excluded from the Bible. Probably because the gentiles were more interested in building a religion than a kingdom (theirs, not God's, came later) so Paul's epistles on religion building were deemed more important. Jesus on the other hand said His only Gospel was the good news of the Kingdom, which we have in scripture, especially so called red letter, but is basically ignored by the religion. The fact Paul did teach it should give it more credit to the Paulist's than it gets. It (the Kingdom, not Christianity) was after all the reason Jesus was born.

 

[timothyu]

seem to be drawn back o OT legalism, largely, IMO, because it provides specific laws to be obeyed, and thus give us solid "good/not good, righteous/not righteous"rules by which we can judge ourselves. "Love God and your neighbor" is too vague for comfort. We're never entirely sure we're up to scratch, and the safest bet is that we're not.

Jesus' 2 commandments were a summary of not only the previous commandments but what God commanded of us right from the Garden... put His will ahead of our own. Sin is not doing so. Plain and simple. Loving neighbour as self was God's will, that we serve each other instead of self interest. This resolves all evils in the world. So Jesus gave us 2 commandments, put God's will first which is love all as self, and 2 orders to follow, repent/change of the backwards self serving ways of man and spread the Gospel (good news) of the Kingdom, the coming of God to remove authourity of man over man by way of His Kingdom. All rather simple, but religion likes to complicate things to make itself relevant and control the narrative.

 

[Jipsah]

Jesus' 2 commandments were a summary of not only the previous commandments but what God commanded of us right from the Garden... put His will ahead of our own.

So don't eat clams and careful how you trim your beard. Hmmm...

But we still like written statutes better, don't we? Ask any Pharisee. And being a good Pharisee is a lot more comfortable than being a good Christian, because we always know where we stand, and can have the luxury of saying "thank God we're not like those people", which Christians can't legitimately do.

 

[Lukaris]

Paul preached as the Lord’s apostle showing us the Lord never changed the moral law just how we are to treat each other in light of it. What is written in Romans 1:18-29 is the same law Paul knew, especially like in Leviticus 18, 19, & 20. The Lord affirmed all of this in Matthew 15:1-20; we must keep the sermon on the Mount ( Matthew 5, 6, & 7) in mind in all of this. The Lord only stayed around for 40 days after His resurrection until His Ascension ( Acts 1:1-11). What Paul wrote re the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 years later is Gospel.

 

[timothyu]

So don't eat clams and careful how you trim your beard. Hmmm...

Funny how people will mock theologians of old but we mustn't question them today.

 

[timothyu]

But we still like written statutes better, don't we? Ask any Pharisee. And being a good Pharisee is a lot more comfortable than being a good Christian, because we always know where we stand, and can have the luxury of saying "thank God we're not like those people", which Christians can't legitimately do.

Self-justification and to be full of oneself is common on either side of the fence

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

How are we to ignore the Old Testament? It provides endless opportunities for us to rediscover old heresies that have been largely forgotten, or to found new cults based on following discrete bits of the Law that appeal to us. And besides, most people who set out to read the entire Bible never get beyond Deuteronomy, so we shouldn't place too much importance on words that came from the mouth of God Himself, right?

We do not need to ignore the Old Testament, and we should not. We just need to not skip words in it. Concerning the Laws of Moses, we need to not skip the words in them which dictate who the Laws were to bind. The words are very specific. They do not apply to either the only-begotten son of God, or adopted children of God.

The words of the Prophets, in contrast, have much broader application.

 

[Laodicean60]

How are we to ignore the Old Testament?

No. Don't start shooting arrows I didn't say not to read the whole bible or even ignore parts of it. This thread did its purpose of creating arguments or accusations between Christians.

This quote:
"For those that are unfamiliar with the term "Red letter Christians", these are folks that primarily follow the words in red, it doesn't bother you at all.

Shouldn't we primarily focus on the red letters if those are Jesus's words?

One would hope, but that idea seems to be less common than you might expect. We humans like laws and rules and regulations to be obeyed, or at least given lip service. Christ only gave us two of those, and they're well-nigh impossible to follow. Way too vague for comfort

You can do all things with Christ's help. Don't stop trying to do what Jesus Commanded because you feel it's impossible. I understand it's hard to conceptualize God's Agape love for his creation but I can understand our selfishness and love for ourselves, egos are hard to satisfy, then look at the world.

Sure. The Word of our Lord has to be our baseline. But somehow, especially for a lot of our Protestant (and yeah, as Anglo-Catholic I'm technically still a Protestant, but then...) seem to be drawn back o OT legalism, largely, IMO, because it provides specific laws to be obeyed, and thus give us solid "good/not good, righteous/not righteous"rules by which we can judge ourselves. "Love God and your neighbor" is too vague for comfort. We're never entirely sure we're up to scratch, and the safest bet is that we're not.

Shall we continue to criticize other denominations because they don't believe the way I do and argue till the cows come home? You have pretribs, young Earth, flat Earths, and a host of other arguments that last for hundreds of posts and then morph into something else. Our egos won't let us back down.

"Love God and your neighbor" is too vague for comfort."

Pray with supplication and God might give you understanding, it took a heart attack and prayer in the ICU for God to show me the reason our house was divided and the wars are all for selfish reasons, and don't forget corporations.

Being here for a year and a half has shown me that no one will change their mind about what they believe in no matter how many times we throw scriptures in their faces. We feed our Egos by trying to show them they are wrong, so much for being of one mind.

 

[Jipsah]

Funny how people will mock theologians of old but we mustn't question them today.

For instance?

 

[Jipsah]

Self-justification and to be full of oneself is common on either side of the fence

Yeah, but being able to track one's merits and demerits allows one to know with almost mathematical certainly. Not a lot of introspection required, you've kept X laws and you've broken Y others, like entries in a ledger. Or actual entries in an actual ledger if it suits you better. You ate the clams or you didn't.

But our Lord's Two Commandments don't lend themselves to that sort of thing. Do you love God with all you heart and soul? Really? Do you love your neighbor as much as you love yourself? Honestly? Hard to get up on a high horse when the real bottom line is based on How Much Do You Love God and other people. "But Lord, I didn't eat any clams, I didn't hit a lick at a snake on the Sabbath. I didn't punch old man Johnson but he better not let his flea-bag of a dog crap in my yard again. No way to fell back on your record, you're either living right or you ain't. And it isn't about following the rules, is about whether your heart is right or not.

 

[timothyu]

is about whether your heart is right or not.

Agreed, but even the domesticated overly friendly cat will scratch on occasion.