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

  • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    1. He called her out on her sin.
    2. He called out the accusers for their sin, and followed the law He set in place, by not condemning her in the absence of witnesses, a priest and a judge.
    3. They were doing what they were ordered to do, and what God needed to be done. However, He did tell Pilate that Judas had the greater sin...
    This is exactly right, and my point, He never wandered from using the Law to convict and He never used personal attacks against anyone except arguably the Pharisees whe believed that their works made them righteous. In the pastoral epistles there is a clear standard communicated and Bob is moving away from it in my view.

    And speaken of ad hominim attacks the congruent logical fallacy, I cannot recall if Bob has a particular quip for the republicans. I have listened to BEL consistently since I was redeemed in 2001 on kltt. I have heard him call them cowards, proaborts and incidentilt "we" yesterday. I am a Christian, I don't lie, I am not lying about listening to BEL, and I am done defending my bona fides as a listner. That does not in any way void my call to evaluate the show in light of the Scriptural standard, and I do believe that there has been a change in the tone of the show. Not what is communicated but how.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JC4JC View Post
      This is exactly right, and my point, He never wandered from using the Law to convict and He never used personal attacks against anyone except arguably the Pharisees whe believed that their works made them righteous. In the pastoral epistles there is a clear standard communicated and Bob is moving away from it in my view.

      And speaken of ad hominim attacks the congruent logical fallacy, I cannot recall if Bob has a particular quip for the republicans. I have listened to BEL consistently since I was redeemed in 2001 on kltt. I have heard him call them cowards, proaborts and incidentilt "we" yesterday. I am a Christian, I don't lie, I am not lying about listening to BEL, and I am done defending my bona fides as a listner. That does not in any way void my call to evaluate the show in light of the Scriptural standard, and I do believe that there has been a change in the tone of the show. Not what is communicated but how.
      Then call him.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • Will Walt Brown be on the radio program anytime soon? I'm interested in his thoughts about the recent Mars lander discoveries.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WatchmansGhost View Post
          Will Walt Brown be on the radio program anytime soon? I'm interested in his thoughts about the recent Mars lander discoveries.
          Bob hasn't mentioned Walt Brown as a future guest but that doesn't mean he won't be on the show. But if I hear something in advance, I'll email or PM you about it.
          WARNING: Graphic video here.

          Comment


          • Thank you.

            Comment


            • =Delmar;1806159]JC4JC
              Pastor Enyart calls Democrats Dumbocrats. What does he call Republicans?
              Delmar,

              Since Jesus slammed the publicans (tax collectors), I have heard Bob refer to them as "Re"-publicans.

              Tom

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                Delmar,

                Since Jesus slammed the publicans (tax collectors), I have heard Bob refer to them as "Re"-publicans.

                Tom
                Huh? Jesus "slammed" the publicans? That's not how I understand it.

                "Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."

                "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him."

                Comment


                • =Nimrod;482776]I just reported this message to the board, lets see what they do.
                  The first recorded violation of God's Sabbath law resulted in the death penalty. So, before Christians put themselves under Israel's Sabbath law, they should realize that God commanded the death penalty for violators of the Sabbath.

                  "They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall surely be put to death. . .” Num. 15:34-35

                  Further, God gave His Sabbath law to Israel only.

                  The Sabbath is a sign, and the Sabbath is for Israel.

                  “Moreover I also gave them [Israel, vv. 5, 9, 13] My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me. . . Yet the house of Israel rebelled against Me. . .” Ezek. 20:12-13

                  The Sabbath law is neither moral or immoral. It is symbolic law and was for the nation of Israel only. Israel will be obeying Sabbath law in the New Heaven and the New Earth. It is a perpetual law, forever, as long as Israel exists. Because it is "symbolic," God can make make it null and void for us in the Body of Christ, while commanding it for the Jews. If Sabbath law was moral or immoral, then God could not void it for us, which He did:

                  Today, God holds in abeyance His covenant with Israel. So since He has temporarily set that nation aside, what does that imply concerning the Sabbath? The Body is not Israel! First, Paul explained that God “cut off” Israel (Romans 11:11-26). Later, he defended the man “who does not observe the day (Rom. 14:5-6). Since God gave the Sabbath as a sign for Israel, and then cut her off, He will not require men to keep the Sabbath again until Israel is “grafted in again” (Rom. 11:23 with Ex. 31:16-17; Lev. 24:8-9; 2 Chr. 2:4; Isaiah 66:22-23).

                  Paul defends the one “who does not observe the day” (Rom. 14:5-6) based on God’s emancipation of the Body of Christ from Sabbath keeping (Col. 2:16-17) as well as from all the required symbols of the law. A man in the Body should love God and his neighbor. He should not murder, steal or fornicate (Rom. 13:8-10). He should have no other gods before the LORD, nor should he take the LORD’s name in vain. God expects him to live this way, but He does not expect him to submit to the law since the law cannot produce righteousness. Members of the Body of Christ are “dead to the law through the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4) and “have been delivered from the law” (Rom. 7:6). Adultery, however, retains its destructive effect. While God took the law “out of the way, having nailed it to the Cross” (Col. 2:14) the moral behavior described in the law remains good and right.

                  I have friends who have Christian friends who have put themselves under Israel's dietary laws, and they deem some foods "clean" or "unclean" to eat. I explained that just as the Sabbath law was for Israel only, so too, dietary laws were for Israel only. And, "clean" and "unclean" animals have nothing to do with diet. Rather they pertain to what is "clearn" or "unclean" for sacrifice to God. Recall that Noah took "clean" and "unclean" animals aboard the Ark for sacrifice and this was before the Flood. Prior to the Flood, man was prohibited by God to eat any flesh of any animal. Therefore, the clean or unclean animals did not pertain to diet.

                  Tom

                  Comment


                  • =Nimrod;484941]The problem is that a man was deliberately and flagrantly gather sticks in the open on the Sabbath day when God had commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath. This man was most likely the first to break the commandment, so Moses asked God what should the penality be. "Death"! This is to show the importance of keeping the sabbath. We no longer do the death penality for breaking the sabbath, but the importance remains that we should keep sabbath. It would be a sin to break the sabbath.
                    Nimrod,

                    I must respectfully point out that you can't possibly know that the man "was deliberately and flagrantly" gathering sticks. Now I agree that this man was most likely the "first" to break the Sabbath, as Moses had to question God as to the penalty.

                    But what you must understand is that Sabbath laws was neither moral or immoral. It was symbolic law and was for Israel only (see my other post). Proof that it was symbolic law is that it clashed with other symbolic law. For example, the positive command to circumcise on the eighth day trumped the negative command to refrain from work on the Sabbath if that day fell on the Sabbath. Moral laws, such as murder or rape, can never clash with another moral law.

                    The death penalty for breaking the Sabbath law has not been done away with for Israel. When God comes back to Israel and "grafts them in again," the Sabbath law will be enforced. Today, we are not under Sabbath law, and thus, there is no death penalty for breaking a law that is not in force. Since the Sabbath law is not in force today, we can't be guilty of sin. We can't break a law we are not under.

                    I still disagree that the man is sent to hell for breaking the sabbath. I do believe that the OT saint were saved by faith, and could not lose their salvation once they received it.


                    Did this answer your question about Numbers 15?
                    You are wrong that a man can be sent to hell for not observing the Sabbath. You are right that an OT saint was saved by grace, but he still had to keep the law. God can add grace to works; but He can't add works to grace. Grace is a free gift. If you work for it, it is no longer a gift.

                    Tom

                    Comment


                    • =JC4JC;1806117]Your confusing, (or maybe I wasn't clear) theological self righteousness for the current cultural definition. Christ's anger was reserved for those who believed their works made them righteous before God. One of the chief complaints against Christ found in the gospels was that he associated with tax collectors (far worse in ancient Judea than modern American democrats) and sinners. Are democrats more like the pharisees who believed they are deserving of heaven or more like the pagans who had no idea about the living God? What pejoritives do we see Jesus using for the pagans? How did He treat the adulturous woman at the well, or the woman about to bestoned, or the roman soldiers who crucified Him? What names did he call them?
                      JC,

                      Without doing any research, one comes to mind. Jesus called one of His own apostles "Satan." See Mat. 16:23.

                      Tom

                      Comment


                      • =ghost;2871142]Huh? Jesus "slammed" the publicans? That's not how I understand it.

                        "Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."

                        "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him."
                        ghost,

                        If Jesus placed publicans on a level with "harlots," is it safe to say that He did not hold them in high regard?

                        Tom

                        Comment


                        • =JC4JC;1807864]This is exactly right, and my point, He never wandered from using the Law to convict and He never used personal attacks against anyone except arguably the Pharisees whe believed that their works made them righteous. In the pastoral epistles there is a clear standard communicated and Bob is moving away from it in my view.
                          JC,

                          To argue that Jesus attacked ONLY the Jewish Pharisees is sort of a moot point. Jesus came to the House of Israel. In His three-year ministry, He enteracted with only two Gentiles. He said, "I have come only to the House of Israel. The Gentile Centurior with the ill servant had to get the Pharisees to beg Jesus to heal his servant. They pleaded with Jesus: "He is a friend of Israel and has built us a synagogue." The only other Gentile was the woman with the demon possessed daughter, and He initially refused her and called her a dog. But He relented and healed her daughter after she persisted and agreed with Jesus.

                          There were many instances where Jesus rebuked His own apostles (called Peter Satan, showed the rich man his true God, etc.).

                          I've listened to Bob for some years now. Can you give me an example of Bob getting "personal"?



                          And speaken of ad hominim attacks the congruent logical fallacy, I cannot recall if Bob has a particular quip for the republicans. I have listened to BEL consistently since I was redeemed in 2001 on kltt. I have heard him call them cowards, proaborts and incidentilt "we" yesterday. I am a Christian, I don't lie, I am not lying about listening to BEL, and I am done defending my bona fides as a listner. That does not in any way void my call to evaluate the show in light of the Scriptural standard, and I do believe that there has been a change in the tone of the show. Not what is communicated but how.
                          His quip for Republicans is "Re"-publicans, referring to publicans in the derrogatory sense of tax collectors.

                          Perhaps if you can be a little more specific than "change in the tone of the show," we can address your concerns?

                          Tom

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tom From Mabank View Post
                            ghost,

                            If Jesus placed publicans on a level with "harlots," is it safe to say that He did not hold them in high regard?

                            Tom
                            He ate with them, slamming the religious leaders who were offended by it. That is what happen. He did not "slam" the publicans.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ghost View Post
                              He ate with them, slamming the religious leaders who were offended by it. That is what happen. He did not "slam" the publicans.
                              speaking of a publican

                              Luke 18:10-14 KJV Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
                              2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

                              Paul defines the word of truth as the gospel of your salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV, Ephesians 1:13 KJV). Now, study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed by rightly dividing it!

                              Comment


                              • =ghost;2871271]He ate with them, slamming the religious leaders who were offended by it. That is what happen. He did not "slam" the publicans.
                                Ghost,

                                I used the word "slammed." Perhaps I should have said that Jesus did not consider them righteous. He placed them on a level with harlots. And in Mark 2:17, He labeled them sinners who needed to repent. Can we at least agree on that?

                                Tom

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X