HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS!!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
AMEN Tam--
Sola Scriptura!!

Click to expand...

This from someone who "counts words" instead of reading the text any time the text differs with her views.

This from someone who reduces the "66 books of scritpure" down to "some texts" in the "NT" and snippets of the OT as quoted in the NT.

By contrast the "Good News" statement in the OP would lead us to bevieve in a Bible that had 66 books!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob--

I feel this was a personal attack--so I have reported this post.

There are some people who post here that need this.

http://www.northbaptistchurch.org/Church_files/AnimationNBC_ErasableBible.html

Some of you have seen it before, but for all who haven't it's worth a look!

Peace,

Tam

Hey, everybody....chill out!!

There is no unity on this thread and each one of you needs to ask "what did I say to contribute to tension here."

There are TWO groups of people here who are discussing TWO entirely different trains of thought.

And guess what???? You are BOTH right!!!

1. YES, YES....the Bible in it's entirety should be read and studied and poured over and prayed over and investigated for it's immediate and future applicability to one's personal life.

From Genesis to Revelation...every single word and phrase is important to Christians in 2006 for study, for contribution to our doctrines, for bringing us to conviction, and for showing us lessons that God wants for us to learn.

We should be, as Jeremiah, the prophet said, delighting in God's Word.

Jeremiah 15:16......"When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart's delight, for I bear your name O LORD God Almighty!"
..........................................

2. ...and NO, NO....not every single line in the Bible is personally and literally applicable to each individual in the same way that it was personally and literally applicable to the historical person in question.

God made some generic promises to all of His children and He made some specific ones to specific children.

God is NOT going to raise up another Abraham and promise him unlimited descendants to build another nation so that another Messiah can come. That belief borderlines on blasphemy!

In Psalms 91, it says that God will protect us with His feathers and His wings, but I do NOT believe that God is a chicken!

God dealt with individuals in a variety of ways. Jesus' miracles were performed differently almost every single time! I believe that Christ can still heal blind people, but he is NOT going to come to earth and spit in the mud and put a mudcake on their eyes anymore.

He is much more awesome than to have to perform a miracle the same way twice.
.............................................

It is important to read about Abraham and read Psalms 91 and to read about the miracles of Jesus because God speaks to us through His Holy Word....all of if.

**All of the Word is important AND is universal to all Christians in TRUTH and in holy meaning.....

**......but not all of the Word is universal in literal application to all of God's children.

And those two concepts do not contradict each other at all.

There is no joy in the Lord on this thread and joy in the Lord is manifested by many things and one of those things is unity in the body.

Peace-
Scarlett O.
&lt;&gt;&lt;

Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
AMEN Tam--
Sola Scriptura!!

Click to expand...

This from someone who "counts words" instead of reading the text any time the text differs with her views.

This from someone who reduces the "66 books of scritpure" down to "some texts" in the "NT" and snippets of the OT as quoted in the NT.

By contrast the "Good News" statement in the OP would lead us to bevieve in a Bible that had 66 books!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob--

I feel this was a personal attack--so I have reported this post. </font>[/QUOTE]This was a "personal attack"? How?

Let us not be philosophical and not speculate about the hereafter.

Click to expand...

It is just as much speculation as claiming you "will never" be able to...

But I will never see what Moses saw. That was an historical event never again to be repeated. I will never experience what Peter, James and John experienced on the Mount of Transfiguration. I will never experience what the 120 experienced at the Day of Pentecost. These are all historical events.

Click to expand...

You don't know, and I don't know. God is, however, omnitemporal.

Originally posted by webdog:
God is, however, omnitemporal.

Click to expand...

I said this once on the board, and got laughed at. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one on the board who comprehends the omnitemporal nature of God.

I don't know why you got laughed at. It's common sense that if God is omnipresent (everywhere at all times) and is not confined to time, omnitemporal is a natural conclusion to this.

Originally posted by Scarlett O.:
Hey, everybody....chill out!!

There is no unity on this thread and each one of you needs to ask "what did I say to contribute to tension here."

There are TWO groups of people here who are discussing TWO entirely different trains of thought.

Click to expand...

Good post Scarlett

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Linda64:
AMEN Tam--
Sola Scriptura!!

Click to expand...

This from someone who "counts words" instead of reading the text any time the text differs with her views.

This from someone who reduces the "66 books of scritpure" down to "some texts" in the "NT" and snippets of the OT as quoted in the NT.

By contrast the "Good News" statement in the OP would lead us to bevieve in a Bible that had 66 books!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob--

I feel this was a personal attack--so I have reported this post. </font>[/QUOTE]This was a "personal attack"? How? </font>[/QUOTE]webdog--

I have reported it and it's between me and BobRyan, let's leave it that way--ok.

That's fine. I still see nothing in that post which would warrant a "personal attack". Obviously the moderators agree, as they have not removed the post.

Originally posted by Linda64:
I have reported it and it's between me and BobRyan, let's leave it that way--ok.

Click to expand...

Bob should not bring into this thread "baggage" from other threads or links not relevant to the OP. Please quote and address from what has been said in this thread, not others.
DHK

Hey this thread certainly took an interesting turn. I should have provided direct quotes and shown how that relates to the idea of accepting "sola scriptura" as in "all 66 books of God's Word - scripture".

Point 1 would have been that in the NT the term "scripture" is used to refer to the OT.

Maybe we can start there.

In that context - ignoring the OT is a treatment of scripture that does not fully conform to the "sola scriptura" notion "implied" in the OP that one would "fully accept the text of scripture".

If anyone believes this point is off topic - please explain.

In fact I believe that in the exchange I referenced the point of 2Tim 3:16 was explicitly quoted as opposing the idea of deleting or possibly taking a cut-and-paste approach to God's Word!

Page 2 of that thread in fact -

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3598/2.html#000018

I am simply assuming that the OP is connecting the SAME text (2Tim 3:16) to the Gospel Good News. Making the point that it is in God's WORD - (ALL of scripture) that we find the ONE gospel - THE "Good News".

In fact we see the first reference to it in Genesis 3. We see it spelled out in Isaiah 53. We see in Acts 17 that even the Apostles themselves are judged against that standard - the "Scripture" to see IF their teaching conforms to the "GOOD NEWS" the "Gospel" found in scripture.

To reject the very SOURCE of that Good news - scripture itself -- is directly applicable to this thread (Unless I am missing something here).

Having said that I should not have been so direct in stating what Linda did on that other thread. I probably should have said something like "some people have been known to..."

In Christ,

Bob