Red Letter Christians (part 2)

Go to part 1.....Go to part 3

This is a follow-up to a previous post from April 12, 2008. In it I noted some of the views of so-called "Red Letter Christians." I'd like to give some more examples in their own words, and I hope to show where I believe they are in error according to the Bible.

In an interview on Beliefnet, in response to the question, "What do you wish evangelicals might accept in terms of salvation for non-Christians?", Tony Campolo said the following:

"We ought to get out of the judging business. We should leave it up to God to determine who belongs in one arena or another when it comes to eternity. What we are obligated to do is to tell people about Jesus and that's what I do. I try to do it every day of my life."

"I don't know of any other way of salvation, except through Jesus Christ. Now, if you were going to ask me, "Are only Christians going to get to heaven?" I can't answer that question, because I can only speak from the Christian perspective, from my own convictions and from my own experience. I do not claim to be able to read the mind of God and when evangelicals make these statements, I have some very serious concerns."

There are several problems with these statements. First of all, this idea that Christians shouldn't judge anything at any time is completely wrong. There are certain things we cannot judge, but there are others which we must judge. Jesus told us to "judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). I go into more detail on this subject in a previous post.

Next I must say I take great issue with his statement, "I don't know of any other way of salvation, except through Jesus Christ." I think the implication taken in context is that he doesn't know of any other way of salvation, but he isn't denying that another way may exist of which he is not aware. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

We don't have to "read the mind of God" when it comes to such matters because God has given us special revelation in His Word concerning "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3). All we have to do is read His Word with the help and understanding given by the Holy Spirit and take it seriously.

There is one other thing Campolo said in this interview that I want to point out. He said,

"There are a group of evangelicals who would say, 'Wait a minute. We're evangelicals but we want to respect Islam. We don't want to call its prophet evil. We don't want to call the religion evil. We believe that we have got to learn to live in the same world with our Islamic brothers and sisters and we want to be friends. We do not want to be in some kind of a holy war.'"

Now we can certainly respect Muslims as we should respect any human being. However we should have enough love and respect for them to tell them what's wrong with what they believe. The fact is that Islam is evil as any false religion is evil. Islam teaches that Allah is no father and has no son; it presents Jesus as a prophet only and not the Son of God. And while it is true that Christians do not desire "to be in some kind of a holy war," ["My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight..." (John 18:36)] the fact is that Islam has been at war since the 7th century. Muhammad claimed to receive the words of the Koran from the angel Gabriel (words which are contrary to the Bible). Centuries earlier the apostle Paul wrote,

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Again I think the problem is a failure to consider the whole counsel of God.

More to come later.

Go to part 1.....Go to part 3

The Word of God (part 5)

Go to Part 1

The Message

I'll be blunt. I think The Message is irreverent, erroneous, and even blasphemous. Let me explain why I take such a strong opinion.

The first time I read a verse from The Message, I wondered how anyone could take it seriously. I don't remember what the verse was; what I do remember is my thinking that it was totally useless for understanding the Bible. And therein lies the irony. Paraphrases (we are told) are meant to aid in our understanding of the Bible. Yet I find that they create more confusion than anything else. Take this passage for example:

(John 1:1-5; 9-13, The Message)

1 -2 The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
in readiness for God from day one.

3 -5 Everything was created through him;
nothing—not one thing!—
came into being without him.
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn't put it out.

9 -13 The Life-Light was the real thing:
Every person entering Life
he brings into Light.
He was in the world,
the world was there through him,
and yet the world didn't even notice.
He came to his own people,
but they didn't want him.
But whoever did want him,
who believed he was who he claimed
and would do what he said,
He made to be their true selves,
their child-of-God selves.
These are the God-begotten,
not blood-begotten,
not flesh-begotten,
not sex-begotten.

Now compare that to the New International Version (which I don't use anymore for various reasons; I am comparing it to The Message because many people use it.):

(John 1:1-5; 9-13, NIV)

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning.
³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴In him was life, and that life was the light of men. ⁵The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

⁹The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

¹⁰He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ¹¹He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. ¹²Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— ¹³children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

I am also of the opinion that much of the language in The Message is irreverent, such as John 1:14 -- "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish." Compare with the NIV: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." "Grace and truth" is much different than "true from start to finish." And that brings me to another problem which the primary reason I cannot accept The Message: Eugene Peterson's willingness to change the meaning of the biblical text. Take the familiar John 3:16-17 for example:

The Message: This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.

NIV: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

"A whole and lasting life" is completely different than "eternal life." It is the difference between the temporal and the eternal, the flesh and the spirit. And "to put the world right again" sounds like some kind of political social change. It more closely resembles the rhetoric of some 2008 presidential candidates than God's plan of redemption. Many other examples could be given, and I plan to post others in the future.

The simple fact is that The Message is not a translation of the Bible. It is not even a good paraphrase, because to paraphrase something is to say something with different wording without changing the meaning. Since The Message changes the meaning in so many places, it cannot be considered a paraphrase.

For a very good comparison regarding The Message, visit Kjos Ministries.

Go to Part 1