A Challenge for the followers of Bob Enyart

[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

 

[Freak]

Re: A Challenge for the followers of Bob Enyart

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

Enyart is terribly wrong regarding this issue as evident by what Jesus taught in the Gospel of John, for example. Perhaps someone will take up your offer in order to exposed.

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?

 

[1Way]

Jerry - We are not the followers of Bob, and you are not (necessarily) the best follower of dispensational thought.

It is indeed an important and controverical topic. But settling this issue should not be because "dispensationalism" is being rejected (for wrong reasons), but because false doctrine is destructive, we need to promote the truth by God's word, and I'm sure you agree that God's word should be the focus for any such correction, so I don't mean to take your intentions wrongly. At the same time, you are presenting an arguably manmade doctrine (your understanding of dispensationalism) as the foundational issue. Unfortunately dispensationalism actually has a pretty widespread divergence, and make no mistake, the proponents of The Plot are indeed dispensationalists. So please be a bit more careful with your generalizations.

Also, I wish you would entertain more carefully the many corrections that have been thoughtfully given to you already, especially in the "claims validate your position" problem. A debate is no fun when both parties do NOT accurately 1) understand and 2) appropriately represent what the other party is arguing. I hope you will demonstrate a ready willingness to stand on the truth in the very midst of opposition, instead of neglecting opposition.

You may be improving in these regards, I'm not at all sure, but speaking past each other is pretty much a waste of time. The nature of the topic of dispensationalism is a naturally wide spread and somewhat complex issue, especially when you consider the various aspects of it all. I know who I would vote for in presenting an Acts9 12 out view, but I can not speak for him. If no one takes your challenge to the center ring, please consider my challenge to you to respectfully engage in point, counter-point arguments where you are reasonably consistent in representing your opponent accurately.

 

[Nineveh]

I merged your threads Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by 1Way
I wish you would entertain more carefully the many corrections that have been thoughtfully given to you already, especially in the "claims validate your position" problem.

1Way,

The "corrections" that you have already given me do not even resemble what the Scriptures actually say.So I will stick with the Scriptures and not your so-called "corrections".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[1Way]

Jerry - There you go again!

I am not saying we have established any corrections between us doctrinally speaking, I am talking about your constant violence you do to what we say. Like right now!

Also, I wish you would entertain more carefully the many corrections that have been thoughtfully given to you already, especially in the "claims validate your position" problem. A debate is no fun when both parties do NOT accurately 1) understand and 2) appropriately represent what the other party is arguing. I hope you will demonstrate a ready willingness to stand on the truth in the very midst of opposition, instead of neglecting opposition.

Don't rip the context of what people actually say, doing so is fundamentally dishonest and going against the truth of the matter.

 

[1Way]

no more punctuation

no more punctuation

I am considering a new periodless and perhaps commaless mode of communication there is an epidemic of people who just love to rip your words out of the wider truthful context in which they were given so if I stop using periods to separate my various discrete thoughts maybe people will be more likely to take in the wider context instead of constantly violating it what do you think about that if that does not serve the purpose very well then perhaps you have a better suggestion I don't know thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration no one likes his own words being used in a contrary way so come on and join me in the latest revolution punctuationless writing the new contextually heavy method thanks in advance for all your kind support violence to understanding is a terrible thing to waste blessings

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So now I am dishonest!

What did you say that I mis-represented?

 

[1Way]

:doh:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you would spend more time in discussing what the Scriptures say instead of always offering up inane "advice" as to how one should conduct themselves on this forum you might actually come to the knowledge of the truth.

If I have mis-represented anything you might have said then I apologize.But If I did I did not do it on purpose,and your remarks about "dishonesty" are not appreciated.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[1Way]

establish the truth, don't violate the truth

establish the truth, don't violate the truth

Read posts 5 and 6 again to see your mishandling what I actually said, you ripped my words out of context. Stop neglecting/violating the context in which ideas are presented.

You portrayed my own words as being about doctrinal corrections,

when in fact, my own words (contextually not violated) says that the corrections was NOT doctrinal as much as it was against you violating the context of what people say

i.e. not about doctrinal corrections but contextual non-violence.

 

[drbrumley]

Oh brother!!!!!!

Is this attack Bob Enyart month?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And because I did this you feel like that you have the right to question my "honesty"?

Here are your words:

Also, I wish you would entertain more carefully the many corrections that have been thoughtfully given to you already, especially in the "claims validate your position" problem. A debate is no fun when both parties do NOT accurately 1) understand and 2) appropriately represent what the other party is arguing. I hope you will demonstrate a ready willingness to stand on the truth in the very midst of opposition, instead of neglecting opposition.

Here you can see that you are talking about "corrections" that have been given me,and you speak about one set of "corrections" in reference to "contextual non-violence".However,I was speaking about the "corrections" in regard to the Scriptures.

And for that my honesty is put into question.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Oh brother!!!!!!

Is this attack Bob Enyart month?

Those who follow Bob Enyart should welcome the opportunity to prove by the Holy Scriptures that the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".

But so far I have not heard from any of his followers saying that they would be willing to defend this teaching on the "Battle Royale Center Ring".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

1Way,

You say:

You portrayed my own words as being about doctrinal corrections.

You are mis-representing what I said.Does that give me a right to question your honesty?I was not mis-representing anything you said.Instead,I was speaking about the "many corrections" that you spoke of that were not in reference to representing what others are arguing.

Here are your words:

Also, I wish you would entertain more carefully the many corrections that have been thoughtfully given to you already, especially in the "claims validate your position" problem. A debate is no fun when both parties do NOT accurately 1) understand and 2) appropriately represent what the other party is arguing. I hope you will demonstrate a ready willingness to stand on the truth in the very midst of opposition, instead of neglecting opposition.

You yourself speak of "many corrections",and some of the corrections were in regard to representing what the other person is arguing.

But I was not speaking about the "many corrections" which were
in regard to representing what the other party is representing,but instead about the so-called corrections in regard to the meaning of Scriptures .If you would read what others are saying more carefully then perhaps you would not make statements in regard to others that put their honesty in question.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[drbrumley]

Well, Jerry

I don't follow Bob Enyart as if he is God. And his fans do not either. But your insinuation that we are "followers" of Bob instead of Jesus has alot to be desired. Actually I am surprised to see you sink to this level. As if we are sheep of Bob's as another poster put it. Maybe I am reading something into your comments Jerry, but I apologize cause they don't sit well with me.

And since you are a dispensationalist Jerry, as well as Bob and I, you know it has always been by the blood of Jesus for which we are saved. But it is total foolishness Jerry to say Isreal didn't have to do anything else other than just believe. How many laws did they have? They had to keep every one of those laws or otherwise suffer at the hands of Allmighty God. And they went ahead and just did just that. To thier destruction. Your problem seems to be coming from all Isreal had to do was beleive. Yes they had to beleive. But they had alot more than that to do.

In Christ,
DRBrumley

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart to 1way

If you would spend more time in discussing what the Scriptures say instead of always offering up inane "advice" as to how one should conduct themselves on this forum you might actually come to the knowledge of the truth.

In His grace,--Jerry

You see it too, huh? 1Way is another poster who offers "wordy" posts with little substance of Scriptural truth.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Well, Jerry

I don't follow Bob Enyart as if he is God. In Christ,
DRBrumley

I'm glad you cleared that up for us.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Those who follow Bob Enyart should welcome the opportunity to prove by the Holy Scriptures that the Jews were saved by "faith" plus "works".

But they won't.

But so far I have not heard from any of his followers saying that they would be willing to defend this teaching on the "Battle Royale Center Ring".

In His grace,--Jerry

Nor have I concerning the issue of spiritual gifts/miracles for today...

 

[drbrumley]

Freak, you really make it hard for people to listen to you and to like you.