The Plot by Bob Enyart

[Unsettler]

Complete, leftist, fantasy land, nonsense.

Personally, I'd be very surprised if the Lord tarries another two centuries. We're already so close, it seems to me, to be living in a world such as Noah lived in(Gen. 6:5).

Could it be a lot worse than it is?

Sure!

Will it take 200 years to get there?

I don't see how it could.

Regardless, there isn't any chance whatsoever that the cities that currently exist will be demolished and replaced with "Line" cities. In fact, I'd be willing to predict that there will never be a Line city that works and lasts longer than a very few years, if one ever exists at all.
The left always seems to just ignore how an economy actually works, never mind how human being act and why they act that way. Sure, they use buzz words like "sustainability" and "economy" but their brains process those ideas in a manner that ignores the reality of those concepts. Central planning simply does not work. It never has and it never will because it cannot work. It doesn't matter if you're talking about planning a housing community, a city or trying to engineer a whole national economy. The systems and processes involved are too organic and too complex. You might as well try telling the weather where and when it's allowed to rain.

In short, there's no way to have a free society where everyone is going to want to live in such a city, because why should they, and in a society that isn't free and people are forced to live in these cities, an insufficient number of people carry their own weight because why should they?

There! In one sentence, the entire idea of the Line City is smashed to dust. The investors of that company are either con-artists or fools.

What if the driving force for these 15-minute cities is not to be economically successful or even pleasant for its inhabitants? What if the driving force is to permanently de-Christianize the world, as part of the same anti-Christian agenda that mostly de-Christianized Russia from 1917 to 1939?

By 1939, barely 200 churches remained open, out of about 46,000 before the Russian Revolution. Clergy and laymen had been executed or placed in labor camps, while only four bishops remained “at liberty.”

Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union | HISTORY

Joseph Stalin led a uniquely brutal campaign against religion and religious leaders.

www.history.com

The 15-minute cities would enable an even greater ability to root out contraband Bibles and stamp out Christianity, through random searches and control of online engagement. Inhabitants could be managed through mandatory injections of a variety of mind-numbing concoctions.

Lord Jesus, please come before that horror materializes.

 

[Clete]

What if the driving force for these 15-minute cities is not to be economically successful or even pleasant for its inhabitants?

Then why build them? What can they do in one of these Line Cities that they couldn't do in Houston, Texas?

Besides, what are they going to pay for them with, their good looks?

Money does not grow on trees, even for the government.

What if the driving force is to permanently de-Christianize the world, as part of the same anti-Christian agenda that mostly de-Christianized Russia from 1917 to 1939?

The more the government tries to de-Christianize the world, one of two things will happen...

They will fail more than they succeed and more people will become actual Christians.
They will succeed more than they fail and rush the return of Christ.

Either way, they lose.

The 15-minute cities would enable an even greater ability to root out contraband Bibles and stamp out Christianity, through random searches and control of online engagement.

Sure! Just like you can't get drugs or weapons in prison.

Inhabitants could be managed through mandatory injections of a variety of mind-numbing concoctions.

No.

Who's going to pay for the development, manufacture, distribution and administration of these ubiquitous drugs?

Lord Jesus, please come before that horror materializes.

Indeed!

 

[Unsettler]

The more the government tries to de-Christianize the world, one of two things will happen...

They will fail more than they succeed and more people will become actual Christians.
They will succeed more than they fail and rush the return of Christ.

Either way, they lose.

Amen!!!

 

[Unsettler]

Just finished the Miracles chapter, and with it Part 2. What a brilliant take, re-imagining miracles as a condemning witness and not as a tool for evangelism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Just finished the Miracles chapter, and with it Part 2. What a brilliant take, re-imagining miracles as a condemning witness and not as a tool for evangelism.

I'm sure Bob covered it in the Miracles chapters, but...

Remember the Ark of the Covenant?

In it was placed Aaron's staff, which had bloomed flowers. A symbol of miracles. In it was also placed the Ten Commandments, the symbol (a literal synecdoche) of the Law.

Both of these things are condemning witnesses.

 

[Unsettler]

So far it has been a great book, but I just read a less well-written section. The critique of replacement theology and associated material was one-sided. Without earnest consideration of opposing views, it comes across as hasty (at best.) Given that the arguments in earlier sections of the book are slowly and considerately crafted, this section stands out as bizarrely dogmatic.

A lot has changed since Paul said that God would return to His unfaithful bride after the fullness of the Gentiles had come in. One example, (which is not mentioned in the section) is that Jerusalem and the Temple were utterly destroyed. These were the unfaithful bride's marriage house and bed, so to speak. In the Old Testament, such a Tribulation would have warranted dozens of very specific warnings over hundreds of years, along with time lines to give certain hope of restoration. Instead, the unfaithful bride has waited for thousands of years without any words from God. They have been divorced for far longer than they have been married!

Finally, are we not open theists? Is God not free? Can God not change His mind about restoring His unfaithful bride? Where is the dogmatism coming from?

 

[Clete]

Just finished the Miracles chapter, and with it Part 2. What a brilliant take, re-imagining miracles as a condemning witness and not as a tool for evangelism.

Not that they weren't a tool for evangelism.

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know​

​

Acts 8:6 And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.​

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.​

​

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?​

​

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”​

​

Romans 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.​

​

1 Corinthians 2: 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.​

​

Indeed, it is precisely the fact that they are "witnesses" (i.e. evidence), whether condemning or otherwise, that made them evangelical for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear their testimony. The problem is that miracles tend to turn far more people away from God than toward Him and so God uses them judiciously and mostly as a sort of calling card that his prophets and apostles can use for when major things, like the changing of a dispensation, are taking place.

 

[Unsettler]

Not they weren't a tool for evangelism.

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know​

​

Acts 8:6 And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.​

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.​

​

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?​

​

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”​

​

Romans 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.​

​

1 Corinthians 2: 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.​

​

Indeed, it is precisely the fact that they are "witnesses" (i.e. evidence), whether condemning or otherwise, that made them evangelical for those who had eyes to see and ears to hear their testimony. The problem is that miracles tend to turn far more people away from God than toward Him and so God uses them judiciously and mostly as a sort of calling card that his prophets and apostles can use for when major things, like the changing of a dispensation, are taking place.

Yes, I completely agree. I was not nuanced enough in what I said earlier.

 

[Clete]

So far it has been a great book, but I just read a less well-written section. The critique of replacement theology and associated material was one-sided. Without earnest consideration of opposing views, it comes across as hasty (at best.) Given that the arguments in earlier sections of the book are slowly and considerately crafted, this section stands out as bizarrely dogmatic.

A lot has changed since Paul said that God would return to His unfaithful bride after the fullness of the Gentiles had come in. One example, (which is not mentioned in the section) is that Jerusalem and the Temple were utterly destroyed. These were the unfaithful bride's marriage house and bed, so to speak. In the Old Testament, such a Tribulation would have warranted dozens of very specific warnings over hundreds of years, along with time lines to give certain hope of restoration. Instead, the unfaithful bride has waited for thousands of years without any words from God. They have been divorced for far longer than they have been married!

Finally, are we not open theists? Is God not free? Can God not change His mind about restoring His unfaithful bride? Where is the dogmatism coming from?

You'll need to be more specific in regards to whatever it is you think Bob was being dogmatic about.

Also, it might help to clarify what you mean by "dogmatic". It comes across here as if, by dogmatic, you mean simply that the position is being presented without evidence or argument. Is that what you're saying or do you mean that it seems to you that Bob is employing a tactic where his evidence is weak and so he's sort of pounding the pulpit and trying to convince people based on an emotional response to what he's saying? Perhaps you think its a bit of both. Please clarify.

As for evidence that Israel has not been cut off permanently, there is tons of evidence in the bible. It not only says so explicitly but more than half of the New Testament was written to Israel AFTER they had been cut off! Thus, to make the argument briefly, if you want to posit the notion that God has given up permanently on Israel, the burden would be on you to provide evidence for that position and the closest you've come to that so far is the argument from silence that I've highlighted in blue above.

Also, you seem to be making a mistake with this line of thinking anyway. You mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and suggest that God not giving them warning of this in advance is evidence that He has just permanently forsaken them. That doesn't work because just who would He have warned and why would He have done it? (Don't answer that right away! Keep reading first.)

If your answer is any form of "the Jews" or "Israel", then you forget that we are in the dispensation of grace where there is no Jew or Gentile. Jerusalem isn't the only city that that has been utterly destroyed since the Dispensation of Grace began. Why would you expect God to warn Jerusalem any more than Pompeii, which was destroyed less than a decade later by what many would erroneously call an "act of God"? Israel wasn't cut off in 70 AD, it was cut off some forty years earlier. God would have had no reason to treat them any differently than he treated any other city/state because He has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

Lastly, in regards to your last point, yes, God is free and yes, God can change His mind but, by, your own reasoning, God isn't going to do so without given Israel every opportunity...

Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:​

​

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,​

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;​

27 For this is My covenant with them,​

When I take away their sins.”​

​

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.​

It is for Abraham's sake and that of Isaac and Jacob that Israel is God's elect. God made very specific promises to them concerning Israel and He will fulfill those promises. That isn't dogmatism, that's the whole entire bible from Genesis right through Revelation.

 

[Clete]

Yes, I completely agree. I was not nuanced enough in what I said earlier.

I wasn't correcting you. Just making conversation.

 

[Unsettler]

You'll need to be more specific in regards to whatever it is you think Bob was being dogmatic about.

Also, it might help to clarify what you mean by "dogmatic". It comes across here as if, by dogmatic, you mean simply that the position is being presented without evidence or argument. Is that what you're saying or do you mean that it seems to you that Bob is employing a tactic where his evidence is weak and so he's sort of pounding the pulpit and trying to convince people based on an emotional response to what he's saying? Perhaps you think its a bit of both. Please clarify.

Clearly you are genius, and I love learning from you. I guess my point about the dogmatism is: "Why not keep an open mind that God may have changed His mind?" (I will make suggestions on your proof texts, below.)

As for evidence that Israel has not been cut off permanently, there is tons of evidence in the bible. It not only says so explicitly but more than half of the New Testament was written to Israel AFTER they had been cut off! Thus, to make the argument briefly, if you want to posit the notion that God has given up permanently on Israel, the burden would be on you to provide evidence for that position and the closest you've come to that so far is the argument from silence that I've highlighted in blue above.

Ahh, but I am not suggesting God has definitely cut them off permanently, only that it is a possibility about which we can not be dogmatic. I am looking forward to learning more in the book, but it seems to me that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was possibly "The" Tribulation. It didn't follow the exact prophesied plan, but that doesn't matter to us open theists.

Also, you seem to be making a mistake with this line of thinking anyway. You mention the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and suggest that God not giving them warning of this in advance is evidence that He has just permanently forsaken them. That doesn't work because just who would He have warned and why would He have done it? (Don't answer that right away! Keep reading first.)

I will!

If your answer is any form of "the Jews" or "Israel", then you forget that we are in the dispensation of grace where there is no Jew or Gentile. Jerusalem isn't the only city that that has been utterly destroyed since the Dispensation of Grace began. Why would you expect God to warn Jerusalem any more than Pompeii, which was destroyed less than a decade later by what many would erroneously call an "act of God"? Israel wasn't cut off in 70 AD, it was cut off some forty years earlier. God would have had no reason to treat them any differently than he treated any other city/state because He has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

With two simultaneously operating dispensations, why shouldn't I expect a Circumcision warning?

Lastly, in regards to your last point, yes, God is free and yes, God can change His mind but, by, your own reasoning, God isn't going to do so without given Israel every opportunity...

Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:​

​

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,​

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;​

27 For this is My covenant with them,​

When I take away their sins.”​

I think Paul was expecting Jesus to return soon and do just that. Once Jerusalem and the Temple are destroyed for a second time without Jesus taking the physical throne, I think that Paul would likely have considered them permanently cut off.

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.​

Irrevocable calling! Irrevocable gifts? What do these this mean? As you know, there are many verses which would indicate that gifts cease and God's calling is resistable. I need help here. They can be beloved, but still at some point an unfaithful bride is sent packing.

It is for Abraham's sake and that of Isaac and Jacob that Israel is God's elect. God made very specific promises to them concerning Israel and He will fulfill those promises. That isn't dogmatism, that's the whole entire bible from Genesis right through Revelation.

How is Israel different than His "manager" in Luke 12?

The Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible manager his master will put in charge of his household servants to give them their allotted food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom the master finds doing his job when he comes. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, that servant’s master will come on a day he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unfaithful.

Will His "manager" be reinstated? The only reason the "manager" was the manager was because of the promises to the patriarchs of Israel. God has already been abundantly patient and faithful to the patriarchs.

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Why not keep an open mind that God may have changed His mind?"

Because God promised that He would give land to Israel, and that they would be His nation forever.

As Clete quoted from Paul, "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." God won't go back on his promises He made to Abraham, and to Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Unsettler]

Because God promised that He would give land to Israel, and that they would be His nation forever.

As Clete quoted from Paul, "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." God won't go back on his promises He made to Abraham, and to Isaac and Jacob.

And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue..."

JudgeRightly, you may be correct, but shouldn't what Samuel told Saul urge caution regarding the contingent nature of God's plans?

 

[JudgeRightly]

And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue..."

JudgeRightly, you may be correct, but shouldn't what Samuel told Saul urge caution regarding the contingent nature of God's plans?

SAUL did not keep the commandment, and thus SAUL was removed.

Abraham was promised a multitude of descendants and land. What did Abraham do to cause God to go back on His word?

 

[Unsettler]

SAUL did not keep the commandment, and thus SAUL was removed.

Abraham was promised a multitude of descendants and land. What did Abraham do to cause God to go back on His word?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." John 8:56 NKJ

Based on this verse, can we say Abraham is already satisfied?

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." John 8:56 NKJ

Based on this verse, can we say Abraham is already satisfied?

When did God give Israel the land that He promised? Israel currently does not inhabit all of the land that God promised Abraham.

 

[Unsettler]

When did God give Israel the land that He promised? Israel currently does not inhabit all of the land that God promised Abraham.

Let's say you have a 17-year old son named Abe. His birthday is coming up and you promised him a remote control airplane. He is eagerly looking forward to the day. But when the day comes, instead of a remote control plane, you gift him a Gulfstream G700 complete with 24/7 on-call pilot service, unlimited gas, a trillion $ bank account, and elite vacation homes in all of the hottest vacation destinations, staffed with Michelin-rated chefs and professional maid services. You also gift him a phone with a contact list filled with millions of the nicest and smartest people in the world, and they all love and admire your son, Abe. They would do anything for him. When Abe saw all that you gave him, he was "glad." What was the promised gift again?

What did Abraham expect for his gift 4,000 years ago? Are we talking about some dirt in a cursed world? Are we talking about administrative and security responsibilities (kingship...for ~1% of his descendents)? Are we talking about anticipated luxuries (then) that pale in comparison to the pleasures at the fingertips of the poorest Americans (today)?

Can we rightly say that Abraham is more blessed (right now) then he could have possibly imagined? Isn't he more blessed and revered than any earthly king himself, right now?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Let's say you have a 17-year old son named Abe. His birthday is coming up and you promised him a remote control airplane. He is eagerly looking forward to the day. But when the day comes, instead of a remote control plane, you gift him a Gulfstream G700 complete with 24/7 on-call pilot service, unlimited gas, a trillion $ bank account, and elite vacation homes in all of the hottest vacation destinations, staffed with Michelin-rated chefs and professional maid services. You also gift him a phone with a contact list filled with millions of the nicest and smartest people in the world, and they all love and admire your son, Abe. They would do anything for him. When Abe saw all that you gave him, he was "glad." What was the promised gift again?

What did Abraham expect for his gift 4,000 years ago? Are we talking about some dirt in a cursed world? Are we talking about administrative and security responsibilities (kingship...for ~1% of his descendents)? Are we talking about anticipated luxuries (then) that pale in comparison to the pleasures at the fingertips of the poorest Americans (today)?

Can we rightly say that Abraham is more blessed (right now) then he could have possibly imagined? Isn't he more blessed and revered than any earthly king himself, right now?

What does any of this have to do with the specific land gift that God has yet to give Abraham's descendants?

Has that promise been fulfilled yet by God?

Or was God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 in vain?

Please answer the question.

 

[Unsettler]

What does any of this have to do with the specific land gift that God has yet to give Abraham's descendants?

Has that promise been fulfilled yet by God?

Or was God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 in vain?

Please answer the question.

"Yeah, having the Son of the Living God as my descendant is nice and all, but I want muh dirt."

God's covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in a way with David and Solomon's reign. Also, Elijah kinda came before the Messiah, as promised.

 

[Right Divider]

"Yeah, having the Son of the Living God as my descendant is nice and all, but I want muh dirt."

Some people say the silliest things.

God's covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in a way with David and Solomon's reign. Also, Elijah kinda came before the Messiah, as promised.

You certainly have to ignore a ton of scripture to believe that God is done with Israel.

Here are just a couple:

Rom 11:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)
(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (11:12) Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (11:13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (11:14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. (11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

Rev 21:10-14 (AKJV/PCE)
(21:10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (21:11) Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; (21:12) And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (21:13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.