Comments for Red Letter Living

Comment on If God is Love Where Does Hate Come From? by RJ

RJ — Mon, 07 May 2012 00:06:46 +0000

Sindi, Hate is such a powerful thing it does not belong in your or anyone’s life. Your father has the problem, not you but it you iput hate in your life then you do too my friend.

Comment on If God is Love Where Does Hate Come From? by Sindi

Sindi — Sun, 06 May 2012 16:19:35 +0000

Some people don’t just hate, they have reasons like I do……I hate my father,because he makes me feel like I was a mistake

Comment on If God is Love Where Does Hate Come From? by RJ

RJ — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:29:51 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I know the old saying “God hates the sin but loves the sinner”.

Comment on If God is Love Where Does Hate Come From? by Please Read

Please Read — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:04:09 +0000

God can hate. It’s in Scripture. He hates workers of iniquity. He literally abhors them. He hates wickedness, darkness and despises sin. That is Godly hate.

While the enemy hates man, not that man did anything to him but because of pride. The enemy also hates God for what reason? Also for pride now that’s “selfish” hatred.

Like how we have “evil” jealousy while God has Godly jealousy over us, His sheep and lambs. They’re different things. God’s heart is pure while ours is deceitful that’s why it’s a sin for us but not for Him.

Comment on About the Bible by Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:45:43 +0000

Interesting. I think this is one reason we need the Church, “the pillar and ground of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

Comment on Jesus and Paul… by Sam

Sam — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:49:43 +0000

Sorry RJ for the late reply, i did not get the email. but i got M Green’s email. I am thinking of 1 Tim 6:2-3

Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness,

The previous few verses is what Paul is referring to as doctrine. I am not sure how far back to go, but it should be obvious, that Paul himself felt he was teaching doctrine.

Comment on Jesus and Paul… by M Green

M Green — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:38:49 +0000

Here is the red-letter confirmation of Paul’s statement:

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-14 ESV)

From this we know that there was truth yet to be revealed to the Apostles. It would be revealed after His ascension into Heaven by the Spirit who would, “take what is mine and declare it to you.” This revelation by the Spirit was on the same authority as what is written in red letters.

Comment on Jesus and Paul… by M Green

M Green — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:09:32 +0000

What Paul clearly says is that the words he and the other New Testament writers penned were directed by the Spirit of God not the spirit of men:

For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:11-13 ESV)

Comment on The Nature of God…. by RJ

RJ — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:39:48 +0000

Woleola, It is wonderful that you agree with everything man has put before you in regard to Christianity. Thanks for your boilerplate response. I will include it here with that in mind. I no longer get into debates with my literal and inerrant friends. The effort is not worth the results.

Comment on The Nature of God…. by Woleola Oluwole

Woleola Oluwole — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:55:24 +0000

Hi Mr RJ,
I am not much of a writer, but I will try. I actually came accross this blog because the Holy Spirit directed me. It may be because of you.
I am not likely to return to this blog. The Lord will lead you and I also into the Truth.
The God of the old covenant is the same God that the Lord Jesus preached. The Bible is totally inerrant and literal, and yes, the understanding of the men cannot really comprehend the greatness of God. Nevertheless, the Lord knew all that before he inspired those men and they wrote the exact words He gave to them. 2 Peter 2:19-21
The differences you saw are indeed something to ponder. I did, and the Lord took time to explain to me. You see RJ, I AM is a contradictory term as a name.
What seems a contradiction in men is no contradiction in God. That was why He gave His name as I AM to Moses.
The God of the Universe is the same as the Humble lowly Servant. I AM.
The Creator and Giver of Life was killed on the cross by the created that He gave life. I AM
The Lamb is also The Lion. I AM
They wondered why the Saviour could not save Himself. I AM.
The same God that is Love is the same God that will cast the unbelieving and disobedient into the everlasting lake of fire (Rev 20:15). Yet this God’s love is everlasting. I AM.
The Lord is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), yet His compassion is new every morning. Check out the “contraditions” in Lamentation 3:1-23.

I AM is like a Mirror: He will, He must, He should, He surely will and He can only reflect back to you whatever you stand before Him with. HE IS to us whatever we have allowed to reside in our heart, our choices. Simple. He is sever yet good all at the same time. Not interchangeably. He is a well from which we draw out according to our choices (Rom 11:22), either Intentionally or ignorantly.

Nevertheless the sciptures were given us to avoid us making ignorant choices.
If there be any weakness or frailty or haziness in any of the writers understanding, be confident that God is wise enough to communicate perfectly with the roughest, basest material.
It’s all in the plot. Afterall He used a donkey to communicate to a “prophet”! (Num 22:28-30). Isn’t that a laugh?

I hope this opens another vista of possibilities to you as it has to me.
His strength is made perfect even in our weakness. If He put His Name on it (2 Tim 3:16), be sure the goods are genuine.

Thank you.

Woleola

Comment on You Might Be a Quaker… by RJ

RJ — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:40:15 +0000

Hi Peggy, yes I thoroughly enjoyed the list. It was one of the final reasons that I am a Quaker at least in my heart. Thanks for taking ownership.

Comment on You Might Be a Quaker… by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:24:12 +0000

Hello,
My name is Peggy Senger PArsons, pastor of Freedom Friends Church in Salem Oregon and I wrote that list. Glad you liked it.

FreedomFriends.org

Comment on Divorce–A Christian Perspective by L

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:00:56 +0000

“we seem to pick and choose where sins are forgiven or where they are not”, although I can agree with this statement, I must say that God views all sin as equal. Sin is sin in his eyes, none is greater than another. So choosing what is forgiven or not is much too human. If we sincerely repent, Jesus’ blood has washed us clean no matter the sin.

Comment on Why are there so few female theologians?? by Andrea

Andrea — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:45:45 +0000

Nancy Pearcey is a modern day female theologian from the United States, I believe. Google her name!

Comment on Today’s Church Building, What Would Jesus Do…… by Annoyed Conservative Christian

Annoyed Conservative Christian — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:06:35 +0000

It sure does make it easier to get up on a Sunday morning when you could sleep until noon, and go to church if the church has air conditioning, heat, and a comfortable chair.

Comment on Putting God in a Box…. by RJ

RJ — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 12:32:44 +0000

youthguyerik, thanks for the comments. Yes, I also think that the last example I gave goes both ways. There are some who don’t personally accept a hell so they invent God in that direction also. The idea of universal salvation is something that I have been contemplating lately. Philip Gulley, who is one of my favorite authors is firmly in that camp. I don’t totally align with him on that yet but I will not take that possibility away from God.
Thanks also for the pointer to your blog I will put in on my read list.

Comment on Putting God in a Box…. by youthguyerik

youthguyerik — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:49:31 +0000

Your post caused me to pause and think a bit. I tend to agree with most of what you said, but would like to challenge the last one on your list. I am not challenging it because I want to see everyone go to hell or anything like that. Actually, I think its a very hard idea to deal with. Rather, I would suggest that folks often put God into the box of their own presuppositions. We want certain things to be true or we don’t believe God would act a certain way so we say things like: “God would never really have hell exist” or “Certainly Jesus isn’t the ONLY way.” (I don’t think you are taking this that far, but i am using hyperbole to make a point.) At that point we move away from what God tells us about himself in order to put Him into the box of who we think he ought to be. I agree that we ought to hold out hope that in God’s mercy he will save many. Thanks for the challenging words.

Comment on Upon This Rock? …….. by David

David — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:22:36 +0000

Best of luck in your journey. At the end of your post you asked if we shouldn’t get hung up on this “peripheral stuff”. Please consider which of Jesus’ commands are peripheral and which are not. If Jesus commanded that Peter have authority, then surely that is important information. If we understand that Peter was given this authority, then we have an obligation to Jesus to follow that authority, don’t we?

Comment on Upon This Rock? …….. by RJ

RJ — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:37:28 +0000

David, Thanks for your expanded views on this topic. I feel that the Evangelicals go out of their way to misinterpret this one. Oh, and by the way I did subsequently get kicked out out the Protestant church I was member of when this post was written. They take their “Solas” very seriously.

Comment on Upon This Rock? …….. by David

David — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:58:14 +0000

I am a Roman Catholic, and read your post with some interest, as you can imagine. We Catholics would agree with you in your analysis of Mathew 16. As you indicate, in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, the word for “rock” is Kepha. You can see in Acts that Peter is sometimes referred to as “Cephas” (See Galations 1:18 for example). This is a transliteration of the Aramaic “Kepha” into “Cephas”.

We can also see in John 21:15-17, that Jesus commands Peter to “Feed His sheep”. Not once, but three times. Who feeds the sheep? The shepherd feeds the sheep. Based on these two passages alone, we can see that Jesus gave Peter on office, one upon which He would “build my church”, one in which Peter would have the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” and one in which “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

What does it mean to have keys, to bind and loose, to be the rock upon which the church is built? These are questions that the early church understood in the context of the old testament.

For example, look at Isaiah 22:22: “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (King James Bible).

Read the passage in context. The church understood that an office of leadership and authority was being conveyed upon Peter. “Open and shut/bind and loose” are rabbinic terms which the first Christians (themselves once Jews) understood very well.

Notice also Matthew 18:15-18:
“But if your brother shall offend against you, go, and rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you shall gain your brother. 16 And if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Jesus is speaking to the disciples. He is not speaking to the crowds. Thus, He is conveying a similar authority to the disciples, one of binding and loosing, that He has conveyed to Peter. Notice, however, that Jesus tells Peter, not the disciples, that upon Peter, the rock, He will build His church and give Peter alone the Keys to the Kingdom.

Can Christians today “tell the church” and appeal to an authority to decide moral and doctrinal issues? Which church? If there is no Christian authority, no Christian leadership, no Christian agreement on morals and doctrine, then “tell the church” is a meaningless command. Could Jesus give us a command that He did not intend for us to obey?

All of this is an argument in favor of a church that has a teaching authority. Catholics argue now, and have since the first century, that there is such a church. It continues to this day. (If you haven’t spent time researching the ante-Nicene church fathers, I urge you to do so. As John Henry Newman said, “To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant”