Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Salty, May 15, 2010.
Do you consider yourself a red letter Christian
No. ALL Scripture is inspired by God so that tells me that there are not some more important words than others.
I understand the philosophical concept which goes beyond the "red-letter" Bible and red ink vs. black.
To a degree, yes, we are all "red-letter" Christians.
I once heard a missionary say "its difficult to preach the gospel to someone who is dying of starvation until you feed him first".
This compassion for our fellow man should be spontaneous and we ought not have to be shamed or bullied into it.
Ditto and it is a low view of scripture that sees it otherwise.
To a certain extent yes. While I agree all scripture is equally important, I also believe the few verses that deal with sexual sin have long been allowed to outweigh the many verses on compassion.
When was the last time you offered someone help without looking at him/her and wondering how they got themselves into the position of needing help? Hmmm?
It is way to easy for us Christians to point out the sin of others and then ignore their needs because after all if they only hadn't ________ they wouldn't need our help. "They got themselves into their mess, they can drag themselves out", is an attitude I see every day here and elsewhere. No compassion.
Then too, growing up most of the teachings I was exposed to was from the books after the gospels. Most of that was on the teachings of Paul. Why the emphasis on Paul when we had the words of Christ Himself?
So yeah, I can understand the sentiment behind the idea of a red letter Christian, though I don't know enough about the group as whole to identify with all their teachings.
Nope, I won't nothing to do with this evil doctrine dug up from the very pits of hell.
No thanks! This is someone I want nothing to do with:
Glenn Beck has exposed many of Wallis' views.
I'm not much of a Wallis fan, but Glenn Beck hasn't theologically exposed anything regarding Wallis.
Anyways, I don't think that a red letter Christian claims that all Scripture isn't authoritative. I think their claim is that since Christ is the ultimate example to be followed, we need to, above all, live like Christ.
But the rest of Scripture isn't less important or to be ignored. Think about it, though. All of us emphasize the parts of Scripture that we want to. It's really popular to come down on sexual sin all over the place, but there are a number of people here who don't seem to be big on the parts about gossip and back-biting.
or lying about one's past.....
Here is an example of taking a fact out of context to create a lie. To put this in an appropriate nd full context and to be completely honest one would have to include in this little lie the reason it actually comes up.
No one is trying to push Gluttony through the Fed and trying to see that our children are being indoctrinated in accepting this life style. And sexual sins are most certainly greater sins in that they are a gross perversion and leave much larger consequences on people's lives.
So if you want to talk about this present it with integrity.
I think the real point is being missed here.
It's not about whether all of Scripture is inspired or not.
Its not about whether the words of Christ are more important then those we choose to print in black.
Its about obeying Him. It just so happens that in a red-letter Bible all the commands He spoke directly to us would be printed in red.
Love one another.
We are getting a bit off the OP here.
The hijacking is in essence about which sin is greater - so I have started a new thread
So back to the OP - Campolo is basically saying that most fundamentalist are only concerned about the sins of [email protected]
So in essence do you agree with Tony - or is he way off base.
My thoughts - yes many "Fundys" are very active about abortion and [email protected]
As far as the poor, many churches are helping to feed and clothe the poor - BUT - in my opinion they are only putting a band-aid on the problem, when "surgery" needs to be preformed.
Why is it a family must come every week for food?
- I do understand if someone lost a job, major medical bills and ect - but how about those who weasel out of work - or even outright refuse any true assistance.
I think overall, our evangelical churches are not properly helping the poor, and those who are - only take care of daily needs.
II Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
I don't mind helping the (truly) needy, but I will not enable the greedy
How does one tell the difference? What appears to be laziness or greed to you might just be someone who can't work but is ashamed of it or just doesn't know how to express their inability. Case in point:
I have know a lady for years who has a mental disability. It didn't stop her from marrying, but certainly contributed to the fact that she married a man who abused her severely. It also contributed to fact that she struggled for years to get herself and the twin girls they had away from him. The government certainly recognized her problem (though her disability check is pitifully small) and those of us who are close to her can see it easily. It simply isn't possible for her to hold down a job, yet one of my own pastors, a man I have great respect for, told her she needed to get a job one day when she went to the church for help with a bill! She'd love to be able to hold a job, but the reality is that she can't. Her mind plays games with her at the least stressor.
So again, how can one fairly determine who is being lazy and who can't work because of problem that are "invisible" to those of us not living with them?
I prefer to use an all black letter bible. Why? Part of the reason is the red letters drive me nuts. But part of the reason is every word of God is important. Jesus Christ, in quoting scripture, said that man shall live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. Every single word is important. Every word is pure. God has promised to preserve every word and we should understand that every word is vitally important to us. The geneologies are important. The chronological statements are important.
Being a Red-letter Christian has NOTHING to do whether a Bible has red-lettering or not. You need to read the link in the OP.
I don't mind helping the (truly) needy, but I will not enable the greedy (quote from Salty)How does one tell the difference? What appears to be laziness or greed to you might just be someone who can't work but is ashamed of it or just doesn't know how to express their inability. Case in point:
We need to do our homework. We sit down with the individual or couple and work with them. - Yes, WORK!
CASE IN POINT. A couple in our church had severe financial problems. Mrs. Salty and I sat down with them. We asked for and received a balance sheet of their income and outgo. All $ came form govt assistance, Welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, (& some "under the table $" About $1800 a month. The very first item of "necessities" was $300 for cigarettes - and they refused to reduce even a little. Further down the list was $ to purchase Playb0y. This couple had a lot more problems than just financial. But since they were unwilling to receive true help, Mrs Salty decided not to offer them a one-time grocery shopping trip on our dime.
In addition, we would have shown them how to properly budget money, how to use leftovers and ect - but they refuse any help. They simply wanted someone to enable them.
So yes, we can tell the difference between the needy and greedy, but we must work at it.
How do you think red-letter Christianity came about?
For many it is nothing but a convenient excuse to ignore the rest of the Bible or to stand in judgment over which other parts or real and those that aren't.
I've never heard this point of view from any who have been described or have described themselves as "rlC."
Can you point to a specific example?