Battle Royale VIII applicants wanted!

Status
Not open for further replies.

drbrumley

Well-known member
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Bob Enyart teaches that the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".

They call themselves "dispensationalists",but their teaching is the greatest assult on the dispensational method today!Over and over I am confronted by non-dispensationalists who say that they reject dispensationalism because dispensationalists teach that some men are saved in different ways than other men.

Those who follow Bob Enyart should take this opportunity to clear up whether or not the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".If they think that they can prove their teaching from the Scriptures then at least one of them should accept my challenge.

This is a perfect subject for the "Battle Royale Center Ring".

Any takers?

In His grace,--Jerry

Seems Jerry, you have your hands full right now and it's not even a BattleRoyal.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Yes,I have mny hands full of people telling me that although Peter was saved by grace (if it is of grace then it is not of works) but at the same time the Lord required "works" in order that they may be saved.

Typical response of those who follow the false teachings of Bob Enyart!

In His grace,--Jerry
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Jerry,

Although this thread isn' set up to debate this issue, I will respond breifly to your post.

You are overstating Bob's position on this issue. (I do not presume to speak for Bob Enyart, but speak in only in the context of my understanding of his teachings as it relates to your accusation.)
I beleive Bob's position is simply that the Dispensation of Law had an underpinning of Grace. The point being is that no one is or was able to obey the Law perfectly. It isn't possible to do now and never has been. But God still saved those who loved Him and obeyed the Law to the best of their ability. Don't forget that having faith in God was part of the Law! So it was a combination of faith plus works during the previous dispensation and now it is faith only.

Very good topic, by the way!
It wouldn't bother me to see this debate fleshed out but I'm not sure there's enough material to go over here to warrant a Battle Royale.


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I beleive Bob's position is simply that the Dispensation of Law had an underpinning of Grace.
Clete,

The words of Peter are not in reference to the dispensation of the law,but instead it is in reference to "salvation":

"We believe that is is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved,just as they are"(Acts15:11).

And the "grace" in regard to salvation of the Jewsish believers are not of "works",as the following words demonstate.

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace"(Ro.11:5,6).
The point being is that no one is or was able to obey the Law perfectly. It isn't possible to do now and never has been. But God still saved those who loved Him and obeyed the Law to the best of their ability.
If they obeyed the Law to the best of their ability then they would indeed keep the Law.But none of them did.Each of the Jews had the "ability" not to sin,but they all did sin.
Don't forget that having faith in God was part of the Law!
"And the Law is not of faith,but,the man that doeth them shall live in them"(Gal.3:12).
Very good topic, by the way!
It wouldn't bother me to see this debate fleshed out but I'm not sure there's enough material to go over here to warrant a Battle Royale.
If there is not enough material for a regular Battle Royale we could have a shorter debate.I think that the reason that there is no interest by those who run this forum to debate this issue is because none of them have an answer to the words of the Lord Jesus that demonstrates that the Jewish believers were saved by "faith" alone,just as were the Gentile believers.Here are His words to the Jews:

"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).

In His grace,--Jerry
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Jerry,

How do you deal with the book of James?
The whole book is about salvation and that works are required for it.

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Jam 2:20 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is *dead?

Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

This is the Gospel of the Circumcision in a nutshell. Isn't it?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Ecumenicist

New member
Originally posted by Wild Child

What about Billybob vs. Tye Porter?

I am new, but there seems to be some material there for a good battle.

Or do you, Knight, think it would be nothing more than insults and name-calling?

It would be a fun side show. You could rate it "R" and let
them get it all out without the usual moderator warnings.
Maybe they could get it out of their systems finally...

Or would that be too much like "reality TV"?

djm

ps Billy's been pretty tame lately, even coherent at times, I
give him credit for that. I'd hate for something like this to be
a reason for backsliding...

pps Sorry for the distraction, we now return you to your regularly
scheduled open / closed theism discussion

djm
 

Swordsman

New member
I would be willing to take part in this. I'm from the Spurgeon/MacArthur school of thought. Predesination/Election is a topic I love to discuss.

That is, if there are no atheists taking part. Can't argue with an atheist.

ATHEIST: "I'm not interested in God."

ME: "Did you ever think if God is even interested in you? :chuckle:"
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Earlier I challenged those who followed the teachings of Bob Enyart to a debate on the "Battle Royal Center Ring".I said:

Bob Enyart teaches that the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".

They call themselves "dispensationalists",but their teaching is the greatest assult on the dispensational method today!Over and over I am confronted by non-dispensationalists who say that they reject dispensationalism because dispensationalists teach that some men are saved in different ways than other men.

Those who follow the ideas of Bob Enyart should take this opportunity to clear up whether or not the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".If they think that they can prove their teaching from the Scriptures then at least one of them should accept my challenge.

This is a perfect subject for the "Battle Royale Center Ring".

I made this challenge two weeks ago.If this challenge would have been accepted then the debate would have already been over!

It seems as if those who follow the teaching of Bob Enyart want no part of this debate.Why not?


In His grace,--Jerry
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Earlier I challenged those who followed the teachings of Bob Enyart to a debate on the "Battle Royal Center Ring".I said:

Bob Enyart teaches that the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".

They call themselves "dispensationalists",but their teaching is the greatest assult on the dispensational method today!Over and over I am confronted by non-dispensationalists who say that they reject dispensationalism because dispensationalists teach that some men are saved in different ways than other men.

Those who follow the ideas of Bob Enyart should take this opportunity to clear up whether or not the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".If they think that they can prove their teaching from the Scriptures then at least one of them should accept my challenge.

This is a perfect subject for the "Battle Royale Center Ring".

I made this challenge two weeks ago.If this challenge would have been accepted then the debate would have already been over!

It seems as if those who follow the teaching of Bob Enyart want no part of this debate.Why not?


In His grace,--Jerry
Oh please....

Jerry settle down dude don't be so full of yourself man.

Your challenge is sort of narrow don't you think?

Maybe if you can widen the scope of the challenge just a bit and come up with a easy to understand battle title I will get an combatant for you.

Why you want to get mashed like a potato I don't know but hey if that's what you want I will try to help you in your quest. :D

Oh and P.S.
It isn't just "Bob Enyart followers" (whatever that means) that view this issue this way. Dispensationalism is a rather large movement.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Knight,

If you have studied the writers of other recognized teachers of "dispensationalism" you would know that the great majority of these teachers say that "works" are not necessary for salvation no matter what dispensation anyone lived in.

And if you think that I will get mashed like a patato then you haven't been reading the thread where I am discussing this point with 1Way and Jeremy.

Perhaps the discussion could be broadened to include the question as to whether or not "works" were ever required for salvation.And perhaps you could find someone who follows the teaching of Bob Enyart to debate this question.

In His grace,--Jerry
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

And if you think that I will get mashed like a patato then you haven't been reading the thread where I am discussing this point with 1Way and Jeremy.
I have been following.... that's why I know your gonna get mashed. :eek:
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by Knight

I have been following.... that's why I know your gonna get mashed. :eek:
I disagree. Jerry has resorted to Scripture and has some Biblically sound arguments that have not been dealt with anyone.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Knight,

Earlier on a thread you started you said:
Many people think "timeless" in regard to eternity means no time.

Which is odd.... because if you think about it.... it actually means the opposite.... an infinite amount of time!
If the eternal state is in regard to an "infinite" amount of time then it is obvious that the time is endless.

Therefore,when John tells the Jewish believers that they already possess an "eternal" life in Christ Jesus then it is obvious that they possess a life in Christ Jesus that is endless!

But Jeremy says that it can come to an end.But if it can come to an end,then that means that it was never "endless" to begin with!

However,John makes it plain that the life that they enjoy in Christ Jesus is indeed "endless".

And with that the teaching that the Jewish believers could lose their salvation and that they were saved by "works" comes tumbling down like a child's house of cards.

In His grace,--Jerry
 

Freak

New member
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Knight,

Earlier on a thread you started you said:

If the eternal state is in regard to an "infinite" amount of time then it is obvious that the time is endless.

Therefore,when John tells the Jewish believers that they already possess an "eternal" life in Christ Jesus then it is obvious that they possess a life in Christ Jesus that is endless!

But Jeremy says that it can come to an end.But if it can come to an end,then that means that it was never "endless" to begin with!

However,John makes it plain that the life that they enjoy in Christ Jesus is indeed "endless".

And with that the teaching that the Jewish believers could lose their salvation and that they were saved by "works" comes tumbling down like a child's house of cards.

In His grace,--Jerry
Their fallacies have been exposed, again. Good job, Jerry :up:
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It sounds like Jerry agrees with Knight: that "timeless" and "eternal" mean "infinite time" and not "no time" or "outside of time."

What Jerry posted reinforces what Knight posted. Jerry didn't post anything that is contrary to what Knight posted.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Originally posted by Turbo
What Jerry posted reinforces what Knight posted. Jerry didn't post anything that is contrary to what Knight posted.
Turbo,

What I am pointing out is the fact that Knight says that "eternal" mean "infinite time".

Therefore,if "eternal" means "infinite" time,then there is no end in a life that is described as being "eternal":

"And this is the record,that God hath given to us eternal life,and this life is in His Son"(1Jn.5:11).

Therefore,by Knight's definition this life which the Jewish believer possesses is a life in Christ Jesus that is "infinite".

But at the same time Jeremy (as well as those who follow the teaching of Bob Enyart) teach that this "infinite" life can come to an end.

In other words,they want it both ways.They say that "eternal" is in reference to "infinite" time in one instance but then they say that this "infinite" time can indeed end and therefore it is not "infinite time" at all.

In His grace,--Jerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top