The Bob Enyart Live forum

[Nimrod]

Re: started out ok, getting worse

Re: started out ok, getting worse

Originally posted by 1Way

we all need to be saved, that is a universal truth, and even though we are saved, that does not preclude us from commiting sin again, another universal truth. This does not mitigate against God’s teaching that if you are saved under the dispensation of mystery, then God does not impute sin on us. How many times must I reference God’s word until you will accept it instead of arguing against it?

How about giving me Scripture locations so I can look them up? Is that too hard?

Originally posted by 1Way
You said No, the burden is on you to overturn the teachings from scripture that the Sabbath is not in reference to the last day of the week, Saturday. I site all of history that validates my understanding, and God’s word in many places, I will not pretend that you are not so ignorant as to be aware of all this, nor you towards me and the thousands of years of acknowledging this fact.

I go by Scripture 2 Tim 3:16. So we both admit you have no Scriptural proof, only history/tradition.

Originally posted by 1Way
And if I would adopt your thinking that since I have not provided specific bible references for my view, then you would be wrong because you do not demonstrate your much more unrealistic view from scripture. I repeat, 1) the Sabbath is the last day of the week, and 2) that day is Saturday, the bible NEVER deviates from that formula.

And you have Scriptural proof for that. Oh no, you say you don't.
Too bad.

Originally posted by 1Way
If you will not accept this, then you are admitting extreme bible ignorance over those two bible facts.

What Bible facts? Please 1Way give me Scriptural proof.

Originally posted by 1Way
Tradition is the number one hot bed for false doctrine, but God’s word is true.

.

Amen, just tell me from Scripture how God started the Sabbath on a Saturday.

Originally posted by 1Way
Sabbath as “cease” not “seven”
Ok, your right, I was wrong, I did not even look it up

.

Well look up how they did the Sabbath, you will find it is unclear on what day it was years before Christ.

Originally posted by 1Way If you disagree with this, please explain your source, authority and reasoning.

.

Scripture is my authority. Hey if you can prove it to me that I am wrong in Scripture, I'll be the first to admit it.

Originally posted by 1Way
Jesus compared himself WITH them, not AGAINST them, for both of them doing a work on the Sabbath. If only Jesus did the work on the Sabbath and they did not, then you would render the meaning of this verse into meaninglessness. Jesus showed how it was right in so doing in each case. So, yes, it was not wrong to violate one aspect of the law if you did so in order to keep another aspect of the law. Presumably “circumcision” and “moral commands” superceded lesser laws and amoral commands

1.) Cool, we are talking about Scripture.
2.) the worship of the Sabbath is not violated by the works of God. Moses was not the first minister of circumcision. But it was wnough for his purpose, that Moses, who so rigidly demanded the keeping of the Sabbath, commanded that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day, even though it should fall on the day of rest.
3.)Circumcision was properly held by them in reverence; and when it was performed on the Sabbath-day, they knew that the Law was not violated by it, because the works of God agree well with each other.
4.)The verse could be read as follows "One of the reasons why Moses gave you circumcision was that you might learn not to take too narrow a view of sabbath observence, for circumcision is permitted on the sabbath. 'i say that Moses gave you circumcision, but in fact the command to circumcise was first given to Abraham
5.) Another view. Jesus says that Moses was the law giver and Jesus goes on about moses connection with circumcision. He immediately points out that circumcision did not originate with Moses, and it was in accordance with the precepts of that Law that the Jews governed their practice in circumcising.
6.)Jesus was not arguing that the law be liberalized, nor did Jesus adopt an antisabbatarian attitude, opposing the whole institution

Originally posted by 1Way
You sought to find sin and error according to false imaginations against me. I hope you are glad to be mistaken. As to my sense of pride not admitting where I am wrong, I honestly admitted I was wrong without issue about the “seven” “cease” thing prior to reading your phony charges. You should be sincerely ashamed. Continued next post

Jesus called people names, not just to call them names, but to make them see as they are. You did correct yourself, and I thank you for that.

 

[1Way]

About the Sabbath

About the Sabbath

Nimrod – This is my response to your post 121. Sorry I missed seeing your previous post on the previous page. See, we both make mistakes. I’ll see if I can get to that sometime, but my time is now much less available, thanks for your patience.

Like I said numerous times, I have never studied this specific issue about aligning up the Sabbath day with our current calendar week system, and by your arguments from the negative, I see no reason to doubt the tradition that says that it was on Saturday not Sunday. You did suggest one interesting bible support for your view, which makes me even more doubtful of your view and that is that the Bible (prior to Jesus) is “unclear on what day it was years before Christ.” You want to lambaste me for not providing scripture for my view even though I have no good reason to suspect the longstanding view that the Sabbath was on Saturday, but you just claim that it was not on Saturday or that it is unclear which day it way. Based upon your own requirements for proving/demonstrating your view from scripture, I dismiss it until you provide sufficient positive bible based arguments.

If you dismiss my view that the Sabbath day is Saturday, who cares, we are both arguing from insufficient positive truth claims from God’s word, and besides, I like my view better. Bottom line, if you want to go any further with this line, you need to provide more arguments than, the bible is unclear about which day it was.

As to

How about giving me Scripture locations so I can look them up? Is that too hard?

I think I have already, but I mostly gave you universally accepted Christian teachings, what are you placing in doubt? Also, I stated several points, by your general question references, am I to suppose that you are unfamiliar with EVERY one of my bible teaching references? The lack of clarity and constructive cooperation is a bit troublesome.

As to

4.)The verse could be read as follows "One of the reasons why Moses gave you circumcision was that you might learn not to take too narrow a view of sabbath observence, for circumcision is permitted on the sabbath. 'i say that Moses gave you circumcision, but in fact the command to circumcise was first given to Abraham
5.) Another view. Jesus says that Moses was the law giver and Jesus goes on about moses connection with circumcision. He immediately points out that circumcision did not originate with Moses, and it was in accordance with the precepts of that Law that the Jews governed their practice in circumcising.
6.)Jesus was not arguing that the law be liberalized, nor did Jesus adopt an antisabbatarian attitude, opposing the whole institution

First, you quoted me, and then basically ignored my point. I don’t appreciate your habit of doing that. You “used” the general idea as a launch pad to express your own ideas, but I am left wondering what your particular response is to my view. Have we been having a discussion together on the issue of Jesus breaking the Sabbath? Hmm, I’m not sure by these somewhat off the wall comments. I accept that you may not promote these views, but also, what is your view? I stated mine, but your response, although technically informative, tells me little to nothing of your own view.

4) I understand and that implication of “application”, but not that scripture “says that”, it does not, you must be thinking of “application” not “conveyed meaning” i.e. exegesis, how it can be rightly read. Jesus was exposing the truth about how they were wrong in their judgments against Him for doing the same thing they do, and they He was right for breaking one law of God to keep another more important law. The laws sometimes conflict with each other as suggested.

5) Spurious and not important, the law of God does not reside from Moses, and the term, The law of Moses is often used as an inference to the whole law. Sometimes Jesus said, the law, sometimes, the law of Moses or what did Moses say, and sometimes He said, the law and the prophets, or the law the prophets and the writings, or the commandments, etc. etc. etc. It does not matter in what way your reference the law, God is consistent in that if you are under the law, you are bound to keep it all, it’s an all or nothing situation. God’s commandments were not optional.

6) Agreed, but that is hardly the issue at hand.

I repeat my understanding, and await a treatment of it, specific and directly relating to my points offered.

You said

And what did Jesus say about circumcision on the Sabbath?
John 7:23 "If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? "
There you have it. Jesus said it was not breaking the sabbath by having circumcision done on the Sabbath. (I didn't hear 1Way say "my fault" or "i was wrong", instead I hear nothing but pride).

Note, I would have edited the following tangent issue out, I’d rather not broaden the areas of focus, but even after I brought your attention to you avoiding my points again, you again have not responded specifically to my line of reasoning, so the part about “sidestepping” is in order. I’ll defer the comment about defensive pride in hopes of more constructive input.

I do see some ..., and a willingness to sidestep the truth in order to protect your ... views. Here is the passage as it is in tact and “not ripped out of context”.

Joh 7:21 Jesus answered and said to them, "I did one work, and you all marvel. 22 "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 "If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

(Argument 1) Jesus compared himself WITH them, not AGAINST them, for both of them doing a work on the Sabbath. (Argument 2) If only Jesus did the work on the Sabbath and they did not, then you would render the meaning of this verse into meaninglessness. (also supports previous arguments) Jesus showed how it was right in so doing in each case. (argument conclusion) So, yes, it was not wrong to violate one aspect of the law if you did so in order to keep another aspect of the law. (reasonable assumption) Presumably “circumcision” and “moral commands” superceded lesser laws and amoral commands.

Please respond to each of these aspects of my argument. That is my view, and until you offer reasonable correction, it stands on God’s word as demonstrated.

Your welcome about my standing corrected (which was an argument against your false accusation against me), I did so freely and without specific expectation of appreciation.

 

[1Way]

More on breaking the Sabbath, food for thought.

• Joh 5:8 Jesus said to him, "Rise, take up your bed and walk." 9 And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked. And that day was the Sabbath.
  10 The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, "It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed." 11 He answered them, "He who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’" 12 Then they asked him, "Who is the Man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?" 13 But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you." 15 The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath.

Telling the man to take up his bed and walk was in violation of the Sabbath law to not do work. Surely you agree with that much right?

• Mt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!"
  3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 "how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 "Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 "Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple.
  
  7 "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." 9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" ——that they might accuse Him. 11 Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 "Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
  13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other.
  
  1Sa 15:22 Then Samuel said: "Has the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, [And] to heed than the fat of rams.
  
  Ho 6:6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

God commanded them to love and honor “Him”, to draw near “Him”. That is all part of “keeping the law/commandments” and is how it is lawful to brake one commandment if you need to in order to keep more important aspects of the commandments.

Jesus effectively said it was sometimes “lawful” to “brake the law” (WITH STIPULATION) by keeping more important aspects of the law, not by rejecting or subverting the law altogether, but by keeping the weightier matters when they conflict with lesser matters of the law.

 

[Lucky]

Ouch!

 

[1Way]

Lucky - Is that ouch for you, or ouch for me, or ouch for Nimrod, or did you just feel like saying ouch? Pretty interesting stuff, how God did not put away the law for the believer until He got to Paul, but even then it remains as a tool for those under the law.

 

[Lucky]

Ouch for Enyart.

apologeticsindex.org
In the opinion of the publisher of Apologetics Index, people like Mr. Enyart live like enemies of the cross and Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't want to sound like I'm Enyart's biggest fan now, but that there above is just plain harsh. :down:

 

[Turbo]

Originally from apologeticsindex.org

Hate Groups: Groups and movements that promote hate based on race, religious convictions, sexual or political persuasions.

According to their definition, aplologeticsindex.org could classify themselves as a hate group based on what they have written about Pastor Enyart. (They could easily classify Moses )



Also, their information isn't even accurate. They associate Enyart with Moral Government Theology. Reading their description/list, most of the items either misrepresent Enyart's teachings, or are exactly the opposite of what he teaches. I'm not familiar with the term "Moral Government Theology," so I don't know whether they are wrongly describing it, or are wrongly identifying Enyart as an adherent. But based on what I do know and what I've seen on this site, I can concude that apologeticsindex.org is not a reliable resource.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Lucky

Ouch for Enyart.

I don't want to sound like I'm Enyart's biggest fan now, but that there above is just plain harsh. :down:

Hey... how come we aren't in that index???

They would REALLY hate us! :up:

What a lame site.

 

[Turbo]

Did you see their anti-death penalty material?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Turbo

Did you see their anti-death penalty material?

Oh brother... what a bunch of left wing wackos!

 

[1Way]

I'd say “promoting hate” is a key phrase. I know Bob Enyart made clear at length demonstrations on his TV show of the fact that he does not promote hating gays for example. Although I think that godly abhorrence of that which is evil goes beyond hatred, and that closely associated "being angery" is taught in a positive light when done without sin. Hating is not the ultimate evil, evil is the ultimate evil.

Ps 97:10 You who love the LORD, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.
Pr 6:16 These six [things] the LORD hates, Yes, seven [are] an abomination to Him:
Ec 3:8 A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace.
Am 5:15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. ...

Too many people have given hatred, abhorrence, judgment (etc), a bad rap.

 

[Apollo]

Turbo:

Also, their information isn't even accurate. They associate Enyart with Moral Government Theology. Reading their description/list, most of the items either misrepresent Enyart's teachings, or are exactly the opposite of what he teaches.

I know there’s quite a few bulleted items here, but what items in particular misrepresent Bob’s views?

 

[1Way]

Apollo – What

“... there’s quite a few bulleted items here, ...”

are you talking about? What bulleted items?

 

[Turbo]

1Way, Apollo is referring to the Moral Gov't Theology link I posted in post #127.

Apollo... I don't have time to respond right now.

1Way, if you feel like responding in my stead, have at it. :thumb:

 

[1Way]

Turbo – Ok!

Here is the website
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m05.html
and here is the listing.

• Moral Government of God Theology

Teaches that

1. God does not fulfill some of His own prophecies.
2. God changes His mind and is not immutable.
3. God does not have sovereign control over earthly events.
4. God does not know His future actions.
5. God does not know ahead of time the free decisions of humans.
6. God's foreknowledge is limited in the area of man's free decisions.
7. Many of the things God predicted never came true.
8. The atonement shows a willingness on God's part to forgive, rather than a desire to punish sin.
9. God forgives completely out of His grace rather than a need for personal vindictive satisfaction.
10. God never needed His wrath abated because of sin.
11. The atonement does not pay our debt for sin.
12. The devil has deceived us into believing that Christ was a ransom for us, and that he redeemed us by paying for our sins.
13. Jesus did not pay for our sins.
14. To believe that our salvation was literally purchased with Christ's blood makes God to be vindictive and bloodthirsty.
15. One is ultimately responsible for his/her own salvation because of free will.
16. Imputed righteousness is a lie. God does not look on Christians through the garb of Christ's blood.
    True repentance means ceasing from all sin before we die.
17. Salvation is not so dependent on whether we accept Christ - it's whether He will accept us. We need to do more so that He will want to accept us.
18. Salvation is dependent upon our adherence to moral law.
19. God is holy only because He chooses to use His attributes in a loving way.
20. God has the ability to make wrong choices or to sin.
21. Our moral character is shaped merely by our individual acts of sin.
22. If an individual unknowingly commits a sin, it is not a sin to that person and they will not be held to account for it by God.
23. The sin of Adam is not transmitted to us, and it would be unjust for God to pronounce us guilty because of his sin.
24. If God condemns us all because of Adam's sin, God must also save everyone because of what Christ did (Rom. 19). This is universalism, and therefore both parts of the argument must be wrong.
25. Our moral depravity is shaped solely by wrong and sinful choices we make.
26. We as humans are able to fulfill the law.
27. Humans are not bound to a sinful flesh that continually wants to sin. Through good choices and an iron will, mankind can turn away from sin in and of him/herself.
28. One can achieve perfection if that individual sets his/her goals high enough.

Hard to believe how anyone can believe that kind of stuff, but it happens...

Wow what a handful. More accurately, that is a pile of falsehood.

I don’t pretend to officially represent Bob Enhart, but I do have a great appreciation for what he teaches. And I feel that I have a fairly accurate understanding of most of what he teaches by reading and listening to most of his bible teaching materials.

As to the group classification. I’d say it is not accurate. I’ve never heard Bob Enyart (from now on, B.E. for brevity) refer to his theocracy as being best described as moral government. Not that God would govern immorally, but that some of His governance goes beyond morality, like all the symbolic rules and laws He set up through Israel, like the dietary laws and the “clean and unclean” laws for example, which is part of what we expect to find God being concerned with upon His second coming, as described in Revelation and elsewhere. So to the extent that this definition is supposed to apply to what B.E. teaches, it is not accurate.

1. This has nothing to do with theocracy, B.E. teaches biblical mutability via theology proper from a bible wide systematic approach.
   
2. See first point.
   
3. See first point.
   
4. See first point., and Bob does not teach this. The point begs the entire question of what it means to have sovereign control. God is the ultimate authority, and that is what B.E. teaches.
   
5. See first point. This is simply false, God can know His future actions but not ones that are not knowable. Some yet future actions are based in uncertain results, and some yet future actions are based upon one’s character and absolute plans.
   
6. See first point. This is not true, God can know what you are going to say before you say it, thought proceeds action, and the state of a heart is also known to God, so God understands our relevant yet future intended course of action better than we do. The fact is that if the future is open to contingency and or uncertainty (i.e. the closed view is wrong), then except for conceptual plans, the future does not exist to be known with absolute certainty, like reading ahead in a novel, God can not do that if the future is open to options, but He can most certainly plan wisely for whatever may come His way. I.E. God has planned our great salvation from beginning to end (of creation) and shows no lack of ability to handle what might serve to thwart His plans.

   Ro 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

   Moreover, here is God’s explanation for how He takes care of yet future things and speaks sufficiently for what we believe as well.

   Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times [things] that are not [yet] done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’ 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.

   God “declares”, not just “knows” the end from the beginning. This is a note of God’s role in authority, it shows no prescience of all things not yet done. Secondly, the way God takes care of yet future prophesy is by His wise counsel which He is powerful enough to carry out as He alone sees fit to do. Just like when He admitted in Jer. 18:1-10 and was demonstrated in Jonah 3:4 & 10, that He does not always carry out His prophesied word (especially concerning national affairs), He can and does repent from completing what He said He would do.
   
7. See first point.
   
8. See first point. No such dichotomy exists. This is pure fabrication. The nature of God’s willingness to forgive or punish is only replete through a solid understanding of scripture.
   
9. See first point. false claim.
   
10. See first point. false, slanderous, ungodly, and I think dumb claim.
    
11. See first point. false, slanderous, ungodly, and I think dumb claim. Nothing else but the work of Christ on the cross earns our salvation.
    
12. See first point. This is not only false, it has to be one of the most childish slanders I’ve heard. If anything, God was the one who deceived the devil via the voluntary death of Jesus at the cross, which provided victory to God.
    
13. See first point. This is vein repletion and does not aid anyone for redundancy.
    
14. See first point. This is complete fabrication.
    
15. See first point. Pretty much true. Wow, they got 1 of 14 right! The fact is that if free will is true, and I think it is, then we really do have to decide what to do about salvation, it’s only if you reject authentic free will that such an obvious biblical teaching as personal responsibility over your own choices becomes a problem.
    
16. See first point. This is complete fabrication, and is the opposite of what B.E. teaches.
    
17. See first point. This is fabrication. “Man’s free will” and “God’s sovereignty over salvation work together in a perfectly non-conflicting relationship. Both types of acceptance has to happen or the relationship of salvation can not happen. If man rejects God, God will not save them. If man non-salvically claims to accept God, but God rejects that man, he will not be saved. That’s one iron clad position if you ask me. So again this claim is false and does not reflect what B.E. teaches.
    
18. See first point. That is funny how childish and slanderous these people are. It is completely wrong, and is the opposite of what B.E. teaches.
    
19. See first point. This is a tough one to respond to. But I am quite certain that this issue is not taught with biblical certainty. There is some speculation about the extent of God’s impeccability, both for and against. If God can never do wrong, then what was the meaning of Him being tempted to sin, yet still remained without sin, “being tempted in every way which is common to man”. Man is never tempted to do something that I can not possibly do, all moral temptation is of a practical nature, so there is a solid biblically based line of reasoning that says that Jesus could have gone wrong, but instead choose not to. And to what extent does this concept become limited with the incarnation is also hard to tell. Again, the extent of this teaching is speculative, but the implications are interesting to entertain.
    
20. See first point, see last point.
    
21. See first point. Simple fabrication.
    
22. See first point. Inaccurate representation. Innocence precludes guilt, that is true. Sin and righteousness and culpability are not arbitrary or subjective issues.

    Lu 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And they divided His garments and cast lots.
    
    1Ti 1:13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

23. See first point. Not accurate. The effects of the sin of Adam most certainly does transfer to every human. Same with Christ’s work at the cross, God brought salvation to the world just as Adam brought death to the world. These teachings are not in any fashion in conflict, but the bullet conflicts the truth of the matter.
    
24. See first point. This is about as false as you can get. B.E. teaches the opposite.
    
25. See first point. Not accurate. If by moral depravity it is meant our need for salvation, then this is completely wrong. If by moral depravity it is meant what we are held responsible for, it is right. Everyone needs to become saved, but only you are responsible for your own moral deeds.
    
26. Ah, finally we have a relevant issue raised according to the doctrinal term!
    
    No, humans (under the dispensation of law) are righteously “commanded” by God to keep the law, God fulfills the law, not man. God does not command what He knows people can not do.
    
27. See first point. This is not true. Humans are bound by sinful flesh and evil people can do good.
    
    Every time a closed theist is truly thankful for an unsaved person’s good deed done, especially if it is done to them(!), they appreciate the good done at that point, but then in the world of concepts and doctrine, they say that unregenerate man can do no good. Jesus plainly says that although evil, man still “knows how” and does good(!), and that God who is not evil is that much more able to do good!

    Lu 11:11 "If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if [he asks] for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 "Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
    13 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

28. See first point. Simple fabrication. But it can be argued that this bulleted list is a “perfect example” of using falsehoods and slander and perversion in order to attack someone.

It’s almost hard to believe how willfully ignorant and false such a report can be. Considering that with only a slight few exceptions, this entire list is bogus as it would apply to what Bob Enyart teaches. Too bad the opposite was true, and only the slight few were wrong. Such wholesale perversion need not be taken seriously. I hope this helps people understand things better.

Pr 6:16 These six [things] the LORD hates, Yes, seven [are] an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

 

[1Way]

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!

 

[Apollo]

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?

 

[Lucky]

Shame on Bob for not being in first place!

 

[cur_deus_homo]

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!

 

[Lucky]

:doh: I missed that. Good job, Knight! :second: (in the "Places" division)