Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bob Enyart Live forum

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turbo - Thanks for extending the opportunity and implied trust for presenting the case. It is a wonderful blessing to have such like minded bible conforming faith. I hope my response was sufficient, but would be more than glad to hear your comments, as well as Knight and all other of like minded faith.

    God says that if you can’t handle a little responsibility well, then you are not going to be trusted with greater responsibilities. Its so good to be able to address differences in faith without perverting and falsifying in order to attack what you think is wrong.

    Knight, Turbo, others of likeminded in faith, please feel free to “chip in” while the “chippin in” is good!
    Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

    Comment


    • Thanks for the effort, and clarification. Bob has argued that fornication would be, or should be, criminalized in a "biblical society." I guess I should just ask Bob, but is Bob "theonomic" in his understanding of the law? What role does "theonomy" play in Open Theism?

      Comment


      • Shame on Bob for not being in first place!
        grace & peace

        Comment


        • From shame.org:

          "www.TheologyOnline.com
          They own a website run by several followers of Bob Enyart in which they promote hatred and even the death of homosexuals."

          But at least they let Methodists who are all going to hell post [t]here!
          The engine of history runs on the combustion of ideas.

          Comment


          • I missed that. Good job, Knight! (in the "Places" division)
            grace & peace

            Comment


            • What shame says about TOL:

              They own a website run by several followers of Bob Enyart in which they promote hatred and even the death of homosexuals.

              On one occasion, a moderator by the name of Paul DeYonghe called for the execution of gays.

              On numerous occasions, the Webmaster of the site has stated that gays are perverts who are wicked and filthy. He has supported Bob Enyart's stand on criminalizing homosexuality and abortion and putting to death anyone found guilty of those crimes.

              Although the group claims to not be associated with Bob Enyart, the meta tags on the home page mention only two different preachers - Bob Enyart, and Pastor Bob Hill who was Bob Enyart's mentor. In addition, the feedback link from Bob Enyart's webpage goes to TheologyOnline. Incidently, the meta tags on Bob Enyart's site contain the phrase, "homos make me sick".

              If you read the comments made http://www.shame.org/detail.html?142 here by people against TOL, you will see Paul DeYonghe, Knight, Bobb, and other posters/moderators mentioned.
              “Prevent SIDS---keep your pants on.

              Comment


              • Shame.org, where discrimination is shameful. They not only discriminate against Bob Enyart, they call him

                a looser,
                their whole lives they've been stupid
                promoting hatred

                In fact, on this page devoted to Bob, this is what one of the posters comments.
                Comment: Saturday March 16 2002
                He's probably a lot of fun at a dinner party. He needs to read some Joseph Campbell. He reads metaphor as literal. He's so stupid. I hate him.
                Talk about promoting discrimination and hatred and slandering a person because they disagree with their lifestyle choices. These people are hypocrites.
                Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                Comment


                • Apollo - I don't know if you missed it or not, but Bob's teaching is not based upon government, it's based from the bible (theology). Personally, I don’t care much about the politics, but Bob is big on these issues (theonomy, theodicy, monarchy, criminal justice system and such). His views on politics and morality are all from the bible. He is an outstanding dispensationalist, which may be the more practical reason for some of Bob’s views on government, for instance he believes in the pre-trib rapture and that Jesus will afterward set up an Earthly kingdom and will govern it according to God’s word.

                  So I imagine that some of Bob’s views mimic what God says He will do when He rules on this Earth. But I admit that I understand the entirety of his views on government less than I do on theology and bible study. But I’m sure there are some here who understand his views on a righteous government more than I do.

                  You want answers but Bob himself may not be available
                  Seeking info directly from Bob Enyart is probably not the easiest rout to take. Bob has already exposed his beliefs in an extremely public way with his literature and teaching resources, so that is another avenue. Secondly, TheologyOnline is somewhat of a hot spot for likeminded folks to gather together. Because of Bob’s busy schedule, he is very hard to contact, I recommend that you inquire from those who have a good understanding of what he teaches and are willing to assist you here at TOL. I would answer whatever questions I can answer, but if you ask more, please use less esoteric terms, and just specify what you want to learn.

                  Fornication
                  I agree with Bob and have to wonder why you even ask about such a thing. Was God wrong for making fornication punishable by a government? Notice, the punishment for fornication is not the same as for adultery, which is a capitol offense. Under some situations, the recommended punishment for fornication (non-rape) is that the couple should get married, again, different circumstances warrant different responses.

                  Clarification
                  That’s an interesting choice of words. “Clarification” you say, I say “exposing so much false claims and slander” is more like it, like about 3% truth conformity and 97% slander. If they got 20% wrong, that would still be a shameful case of misrepresentation and should be corrected. It is a well known fact that some Christian circles have extreme prejudices against Bob because of his various views, and in this case, it is only obvious that whoever put together that list is a closed theist who views open theism with obvious despise.

                  Classification and list issues
                  May I remind you that the entire classification is incorrect and it does not even match the listing! All but a few views can not be said to relate well to government, instead the “list” is primarily concerned with theology, it is not about government.
                  Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                  Comment


                  • Was God wrong for making fornication punishable by a government?
                    Wasn’t aware God did. Had this discussion with Jefferson. Only biblical support offered for criminalization of fornication were virgin bride price laws. Not too convincing. If you can do better, glad to hear it.

                    Appreciate your indignity re: misrepresentation of Open Theism’s views. Didn’t realize Bob had a theonomic “edge” to him until listening to his debate with Libertarian Party prez candidate, Gary Nolan. Thought, in fact, Bob had gone too far, even according to biblical law, when saying that unlicensed sex between unmarried adults should be a federal crime. Then wondered how closely theonomy was tied to Open Theism.

                    Thanks for engaging.

                    Comment


                    • Your welcome. I wonder if you will help to amend the misrepresentations of BEL.

                      Apollo – You said
                      Appreciate your indignity re: misrepresentation of Open Theism’s views.
                      Well, that is not how I would summize it, because they got some of the particulars about open theism’s claims correct even though they appraise it wrongly, but more to the point, my criticism of the overwhelming falseness was largely due to the fact of miss categorizing the list of beliefs in two, not one, but two ways! First, the category does not fit well with Bob’s government views, and secondly because the list was not about government, it was about theology. I am wondering if you are the one behind this careless list because you are not very careful with the little that has been presented to you, first calling my brash exposure of rampant fraud a “clarification”, then altering the summery of my exposure in a fair but not accurate way, I grant you meant no harm, but there is a clear difference, namely, they got some of the particulars about open theism right that I did not attempt to address since that was not the focus of my response, nor the focus of the list.

                      I would be happy to deal with whatever “open view” “closed view” issues you may have, as that is an area that I am well familiar with. At your discretion of course, but I suggest you settle the issue that has been started first. It is a serious matter to falsify against the brethren, it is an evil that God hates, see the Proverbs passage previously sighted for proof.

                      Jefferson is a great guy, and I suspect hes would do well embellishing on more of Enyart’s views on government, that seems to be one of his strong suites. But I can see you missed God’s point that I trust Jefferson tried to deliver to you. Here is the passage for your reconsideration for being as you say, “convincing”.
                      De 22:10 "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 "You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together. 12 "You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself.
                      (1a) 13 "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 "and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ 15 "then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 "And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 ‘Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, "I found your daughter was not a virgin," and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 "Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 "and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. 20 (1b) "But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 "then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you. 22 (2) "If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. 23 (3) "If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 "then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 25 (4) "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 "But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 "For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. 28 (5) "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 "then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
                      Here you have God dictating a list of commands to individuals and that are optional suggestions for right living, ,,, right? Or, could it be that God was serious and trustworthy and was actually commanding His people, the nation of Israel the way of life for national and criminal affairs. You should not remain so confused about the nature of God’s commandments.

                      This is part of the law that God gave to Israel and is no less binding to them than the 10 commandments or circumcision for example. I numbered the various sex outside of marriage commandments and underlined the various punishments and judgments for each separate case. This is an issue that is very akin to rape and murder both of which sins are capitol offenses, but not pure fornication, it is wrong, but it is not a capitol offense. Notice the extreme similarity between the two firebrick colored sections. Situation 1a, the woman is innocent, and no one is put to death and the man pays restitution and forfeits his rights of divorce presumably because his reputation has been trashed. But under the same situation but the woman is guilty as charged, it becomes a capitol offense, and she is put to death! The severity of differences in the altered situations between this (1a and 1b) and the 5th example should clue you in on just how important it should be for you to have a solid understanding of God’s word PRIOR to taking a stance against one of it’s commandments.

                      In the case of for unmarried people fornicating, and rape and adultery was not involved, then the judgment is marriage. It was not rape because they were both consenting, and marriage is not a punishment, it is a holy institution created by God and is one of the most common analogies of our relationship with God. It was not lawful, or legal to fornicate, but the crime was nothing compared to adultery or rape or sodomy which are capitol crimes. Sometimes crimes are punished by restitution, and this is the extent that God commands for this crime, the obligatory dowry, and forfeiture of right his generally liberal rights of divorcement.

                      To me, God’s word is about as authoritative and convincing as you can get. However, maybe you have a more “convincing” alternative for how to handle such things as fornication and rape and adultery and false divorce claims, that we should all hear about. Please explain fully.
                      Last edited by 1Way; April 27th, 2004, 12:06 AM.
                      Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

                      Comment


                      • I am wondering if you are the one behind this careless list because you are not very careful with the little that has been presented to you, first calling my brash exposure of rampant fraud a “clarification”, then altering the summery of my exposure in a fair but not accurate way…
                        You clarified your position by exposing the list as a fraud. No need to second-guess my motives or choice of words.

                        I would be happy to deal with whatever “open view” “closed view” issues you may have, as that is an area that I am well familiar with.
                        I’ve asked twice if there’s a relationship between theonomy and the Open View. Are Open View theologians theonomists? Do Open View theologians advocate the introduction of Old Testament law into the modern day penal code? What I’m trying to determine is whether theonomy is part of the OV credo, or whether theonomy is held by some adherents of the OV, but is not necessarily a tenet of the OV.

                        At your discretion of course, but I suggest you settle the issue that has been started first. It is a serious matter to falsify against the brethren…
                        Tough room. What “issue,” and in what way did I “falsify” against the brethren? I asked a simple question.

                        Jefferson is a great guy, and I suspect he would do well embellishing on more of Enyart’s views on government, that seems to be one of his strong suites. But I can see you missed God’s point that I trust Jefferson tried to deliver to you.
                        The point that Jefferson, and now you, are missing, is that adultery and virgin price laws are, under biblical law, property crimes, not sex crimes. Sex crimes are explicitly mentioned: Rape, incest, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality. Was “fornication” merely overlooked, or did God know what he was doing? In other words, you are arguing that fornication should be punished as a sex crime by citing case law dealing with property crimes, which would never stand up in a court of biblical law. Nowhere is unlicensed sex between two “non-virgin,” unmarried adults criminalized in Scripture.

                        Or, could it be that God was serious and trustworthy and was actually commanding His people, the nation of Israel the way of life for national and criminal affairs. You should not remain so confused about the nature of God’s commandments.
                        There’s plenty of confusion to go around, witness first Bob’s attempt, then Jefferson’s, and now yours, to criminalize behavior permitted under biblical law. Please produce one jot of Scripture where God commanded the criminalization of consensual sex between non-virgin, unmarried adults. If you do not understand the difference between property crimes and sex crimes under biblical law, you are in no position to lecture anyone about the nature of God’s commandments.

                        In the case of for unmarried people fornicating, and rape and adultery was not involved, then the judgment is marriage.
                        In the law you cited, the law only applies if the woman is a “virgin” and still considered the property of her father. The scenario Gary Nolan suggested has nothing to do with boinking a virgin. He asked if a man and a woman fall in love and have sex, should they be arrested? Bob said yes, Jefferson said yes, and given what you’ve already said, I’m assuming you’d say yes. The scenario is of a single, emancipated, non-virgin adult woman, living on her own, no longer under the authority of her father, having sex with an unmarried man. Where in Scripture is unlicensed sex between consenting, unmarried adults a “crime”?

                        To me, God’s word is about as authoritative and convincing as you can get. However, maybe you have a more “convincing” alternative for how to handle such things as fornication and rape and adultery and false divorce claims, that we should all hear about. Please explain fully.
                        I am appealing to God’s word. I am appealing to God’s law. If I was single, and committed unlicensed sex with an emancipated, unmarried woman, and was charged with a crime, I’m entitled to know what law has been broken, am I not? If there was no law forbidding homosexuality, or bestiality, what would you do? Cite the virgin bride price laws? There is no law forbidding sex between non-virgin, unmarried adults. Yet, you cite the virgin bride price laws, and other laws having nothing to do with the scenario described.

                        Like I said, not too convincing.

                        Thanks for engaging.

                        Comment


                        • About shame.org

                          Originally posted by 1Way

                          Talk about promoting discrimination and hatred and slandering a person because they disagree with their lifestyle choices. These people are hypocrites.
                          Well, what can you say? I guess they let "their" people post what they deem acceptable, and TOL lets "their" people post what they deem acceptable. It is ironic, to say the least, though, isn't it?
                          The engine of history runs on the combustion of ideas.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 1Way

                            Apollo - I don't know if you missed it or not, but Bob's teaching is not based upon government, it's based from the bible (theology).
                            And from what I know about Bob there is little, if no, grace in his tirade-tainment, hate-filled theology.
                            The engine of history runs on the combustion of ideas.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

                              And from what I know about Bob there is little, if no, grace in his tirade-tainment, hate-filled theology.




                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

                                And from what I know about Bob...
                                Which isn't much, is it?
                                BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X