Only the 'Red Letters'

"OP is saying that they only trust the 'red' letters to believe in the area of salvation? or they only trust what Jesus said about salvation in the NT?"

If that's the case then let's not stop with matters of salvation. Let's carry this argument to its logical conclusion and that is to chunk out everything else and just follow the four gospels. Red letter liberalism destroys the overall integrity of the Bible and renders it subject to personal opinion.

 

One might also point out that these "red letters" are fairly new, as well, with the first appearance, effectively found in the 20th Century, as the first "red-letter" edition was printed in 1899.

Second, there is the question of "direct quotations" vs. "indirect quotations".

Third, consider that all the supposed quotations of Jesus are at, best, second person and in a couple of instances, third person accounts.

Fourth, Jesus did not 'write' anything specifically, that we have recorded, but others did, which is almost indentical to the one above.

Fifth, this practice appears to elevate God, the Son, in the NT above God, as seen in the OT. As much, if not more, of the OT is said to be directly the words of God, as is the NT, from a quick glance.

Sixth, this is in opposition to the principle of "All Scripture is 'God-breathed-out' and is profitable...", as others have pointed out, already.

Seventh, this directly contradicts Peter's statement that God, the Holy Spirit, was responsible for the 'utterance' of the speaking, and

Eighth, that what was written was more certain than Peter's own eyewitness recollections.

Just a few quick thoughts.

Ed

 

I’m not sure what you’re claiming is not true based on your response below.

Okay, so you agree with the first half of my argument...

I never claimed that Jesus (in the gospels) spoke to the churches. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. The point I was making in the above quoted sentences was that the churches of the New Testament were made up of people who had committed themselves to following the commands of Christ. I don’t know what that would be a controversial statement, but since you agree with the first assertion I make, I can only conclude you disagree with the second (or somehow have no idea what I’m talking about).

Do I need to quote all the places where Paul commends the churches for their concern for following Christ?

Saying it is incorrect and biblically demonstrating it is incorrect are two very different things.

Yes he did, because he received his teaching from Jesus. (I’ve never argued anything else!) But I’m talking about interpretive issues, not the nature and inspiration of Paul’s writings.

It means:

1) I’m not questioning Paul’s authority or the validity of his writings

2) I’m not claiming the words of Jesus are necessarily more important than the words of Paul (or any of the other inspired biblical authors)

3) I am claiming there is a difference in the way we need to interpret the scripture, based upon:

-- the differences of intended audiences of the gospels and the epistles -- the gospels are evangelistic documents for believers and unbelievers while the epistles are for believers (the churches)

-- the differences between Paul and Jesus, that is, Jesus is God incarnate and Paul is not – Paul is a disciple of Jesus, but Jesus is not a disciple of Paul

-- Paul writes to the churches in the expectation that they have already heard the gospel, that is, the teaching of Jesus which is preserved for us in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

It makes all kinds of sense, as I will explain in a moment.

Yes. Since the gospels are scripture, why is it wrong to use them as the basis for interpreting the New Testament letters? Have you noticed that our Christian ancestors placed the gospels first when they were ordering the books? They knew the gospels were fundamental to the rest of the New Testament.

“normal hermeneutics”?

You and I both know that the definition of “normal” hermeneutics is highly subjective and has changed dramatically throughout Christian history. For that matter, the way many of the New Testament authors (even Paul) reinterpreted the Old Testament violates many of our modern rules of “normal hermeneutics.” Since I’m claiming that our “normal” hermeneutical method is faulty, your appeal to “normal hermeneutics” does not carry any authority. I’m asking that we reexamine our “normal” hermeneutics and determine whether or not the Bible supports my interpretive method.

I don’t have enough time nor room to give an exhaustive treatment of the subject regarding this point this morning, but let me give you a biblical illustration from Paul’s writings. In Ephesians 2, Paul is gives the church in the region of Ephesus a grand exposition of our status and position in Christ, explaining how we are related to the Triune God and to each other (including the apostles and prophets). Paul writes at the end of chapter 2:

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”

As we all know, the corner stone of a building establishes the alignment of every other stone. In the same way, the Person of Jesus establishes the alignment of every part of the church, including the interpretation of scripture. As we build our biblical understanding, we need to look to Jesus to establish how things are to be aligned, and then interpret everything in the light of Jesus’ teaching, works and character.

[continued in the next post]

 

The traditional “Roman Road” presentation (at least the one I grew up with) focuses extensively on propositions related to the atonement while the teachings and call of Jesus to all people is a call to discipleship. Through becoming a disciple of Jesus, we enter into His everlasting life.

Now some people are immediately going to scream, “That’s a works-based salvation!” No it isn’t.

If you pay attention to what Jesus actually teaches, He is inviting us into His life, not based on performance, status, goodness or ability, but upon his grace. But some (mostly five-point Calvinists) will insist that the very act of committing ourselves to Jesus as His disciple is a work (as in earning salvation). I understand that point, but I have to point out that the New Testament is not opposed to works at all. Dallas Willard has said it very well, “Grace is not opposed to effort, but to earning.”

In contrast to this perspective, the “Roman Road” guide to salvation diminishes or ignores the call of Jesus to discipleship and the “kingdom of God” and focuses upon attaining heaven. While there’s nothing wrong with heaven (and those who are Jesus’ disciples will inherit heaven), heaven is not the focus of Jesus’ teachings. While the “Roman Road” purports to get people ready to die, it does not get people ready to live for Christ.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the Epistle to the Romans. It lines up very nicely with Jesus’ teaching, especially when taken in the context of Jesus’ teaching. But the modern habit of ignoring Jesus’ teaching in favor of Paul’s teaching (as well as our deep-seated cultural desire to deal with God on a transactional basis instead of a relational basis) insulates us from an interactive discipleship relationship with Jesus in favor of a “salvation transaction” where we get a ticket to heaven but still get the be the boss of our lives.

As I’ve pointed out before, you have completely misunderstood what I am saying. Please go back and review what I have written in this thread.

I think this may be part of the problem. You seem to be looking for “a typical response” and are basing your reactions upon what you expect me to say and mean instead of what I am actually saying. Instead of trying to win an argument (I’m certainly not trying to win), let’s focus on whether or not what I have to say is biblical.

Popular “orthodoxy” needs not to be the final arbiter of doctrine. Does the Bible support this view or not?

 

I am with you on this. We have worked hard to condense the gospel into a 5-8 minute presentation to get them on thier knees, to coherce them to be at church on Sunday, to drag them down the isle to get them wet, to put them on our membership roll. At no time in our presentation do we talk about a true believer being a disciple. And it is a false presentation of the gospel.

I will not concede that that translates into Christian socialism/communism.

 

What a difference 45 years make! I use the 1963 BF&M. It clearly states "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ."

The complaints I generally hear around here about that are these:

1. Jesus did not speak of homosexuallity, so interpreting by Jesus we cannot either. Uh, NO. Jesus did not speak of homosexuallity, but of HUMAN sexuallity. He made it clear it is the Adam and Eve variety. I suspect we would rather quote Paul because Jesus made is clear NOT ONLY is it not Adam and Steve it isn't Adam and Eve and Betty and Joe and Tom. In other words, we would rather point out the truth that gay sex is sin than deal with the fact that so is adultery, and our casual remarriage and divorce or shack up culture. How many good Baptists are on husband or wife #3 or did the live in lover thing?

2. You won't find sola fida in the teachings of Jesus. OH REALLY? My "red letter" edition contains John 3:16 and what Jesus said to the thief on the cross. Sounds pretty sola fida to me.

3. That it is "used" by the liberals and feminists. Ok, I agree. That does not make it wrong. If Jesus appointed 12 male apostles and yet the first evangelists were women, maybe the feminists are right. After all, the same Paul that says women should be silent and cannot teach men or be in authority over them also told the women how to dress and dress their hair when taking part in church. He recorded and encouraged at least one husband-wife team to teach a man. So maybe our traditional view of women in the church as according to Paul isn't all that clear. Let's see what Jesus did: allowed Mary to "sit at His feet" instead of tending kitchen work. That is about equivalent of our seminary. Remember those first evangelists of the resurrection? HMM.

No, I think the reason Baptists have ditched that sentence about interpreting the Bible by Jesus Christ is that we cannot do that and cling to some of our pet doctrines. (Probably the same reason we pick this translation or the other and castigate all others.)

Would it not be wiser to amend our doctrines? Isn't it better to teach the commandments of God rather than the doctrines of men (speaking of ourselves, not Paul.)?

Or are we still stumbling over Jesus?

 

Absolutely!

While we disagree about a great number of things, this is one of the issues at the core of our problems in Western Christianity today.

 

I think it is. It has lead to a plethoria of lost folks on membership roles. I also believe it has lead to the notion that some believe the sinners prayer saves. Such is not taught but the issue is not effectively communicated either. The truth is if you do not have enough heart for God to be a disciple then you do not have a true heart for God period. John 15

 

Direct him to the Red Letters that speak about Scripture. What did Jesus believe about the bible?

Jesus clearly stated that "Scripture Cannot be Broken". Jesus often said "it is written" expecting the authority of the biblical text to be accepted.

Granted Jesus was not referring to the New Testament, but if we accept the OT as authoratative, we should be unsurprised that the Holy Spirit would author a NT too.

 

Welcome to the BB.

Ed

 

Let's see now. You're calling people who pay close attention to the words of Jesus Christ "liberals?" In that case I'm a liberal. What are you?

 

Paul may have placed his words on a par with the words od Jesus but I don't. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Paul is not.