Summer Wonderland at BEL

[Nightsongs]

Your "theological circles" should read the debate Bob Enyart had with Dr. Samuel Lamerson, professor at Knox Theological Seminary. Better yet, read it yourself and then ask yourself how the simple pastor fared against the scholarly Dr. Lamerson.

The debate was about Open Theism. Bob Enyart is a talented debater, I do not question that. Ones ability to debate does not make for ones ability to discern theological positions CORRECTLY.

Open Theism was not invented until around the 1980's with Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. I question Rice's ability to even understand the Bible, because as a 7th Day Adventists, he doesn't even know the basics of the gospel and our program today.

Rice was the only person to debate O.T. at the ETS. If Rice cannot even discern the law from grace being a 7th Day Adventist, how much more credible is he in regards to discerning who God is and His attributes. The foundation of Rice is built on sand and Bob Enyart built his house on that same sand. Watch how they sink, watch how they sink!

The concept of Open Theism is only 28 years old. I need not say anything further except that I disagree with it and it is only 28 years old.

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

Dr. Norman Geisler's book ‘’Creating God in the Image of Man?’’ shows that Open Theism is a heresy and that the traditional attributes of God are true.

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

I will leave the Open Theism debate for another place. The point of this was that IF Bob Enyart is a Bible scholar then he needs to join the ETS and debate others over at ETS.

He can apply here: http://www.etsjets.org/

Also, he needs to have more than just O.T. positions to debate.

Did I mention that Open Theism is around 28 years old and Dr. Rice is the first person to bring this concept over to the ETS for debate? Mind you, Rice is a 7th Day Adventist, who cannot even understand the basics of law and grace. Who is he to comment on God's attributes? The same goes for Enyart.

 

[Maximeee]

Erm. No. Open Theism wasn't invented 28 years ago. It was "invented" by God. :duh:

 

[heir]

Nightsongs just came here to :spam:

 

[standup4God]

If I were to be honest, I kind of wish Bob's shows were the way they used to be. You know, when Doug McBurney co-hosted. Those were the best. I still love Bob and his ministry, but his shows aren't quite as entertaining as they used to be. Anyways, God bless!

I miss Doug on Friday nights, too!

 

[The Graphite]

Man, I'm disappointed... Nobody even batted an eye at my Doug joke.

 

[heir]

Here you go Graphite

Question: What's the difference between Doug McBurney and a pitbull?


Answer: deoderant.

:rotfl: Feel better?

 

[The Graphite]

Here you go Graphite :rotfl: Feel better?

A pit rofl? Aw man, now I feel even worse... :rain:

 

[Nightsongs]

Erm. No. Open Theism wasn't invented 28 years ago. It was "invented" by God. :duh:

The above is by-far one of the dumbest responses I have seen in a long time.

 

[Jefferson]

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination#cite_note-0

The early church fathers consistently uphold the freedom of human choice.

So much for Open Theism being only 28 years old. :darwinsm:

IF Bob Enyart is a Bible scholar then he needs to join the ETS and debate others over at ETS.

Can anyone read ETS debates online or does ETS keep the debates from public view whenever their so-called "scholars" get dusted? Enyart announces he will sell a printed version of the debate before it even begins, not knowing if he will win or lose. All of his debates can also be read free by anyone in the world here on TOL. Do the courageous ones at ETS do the same or are they not that confident in their biblical positions?

 

[Delmar]

The debate was about Open Theism. Bob Enyart is a talented debater, I do not question that. Ones ability to debate does not make for ones ability to discern theological positions CORRECTLY.

Open Theism was not invented until around the 1980's

I have a little challenge for you. Type in what ever your favorite doctrines are, that disagree with Catholicism, and the Catholic response to you would be exactly the same as your response to open view Christianity, accept that the dates and the names of the supposed "inventors" of the doctrine would be different!

with Seventh-day Adventist theologian Richard Rice's book The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will. I question Rice's ability to even understand the Bible, because as a 7th Day Adventists, he doesn't even know the basics of the gospel and our program today.

Rice was the only person to debate O.T. at the ETS. If Rice cannot even discern the law from grace being a 7th Day Adventist, how much more credible is he in regards to discerning who God is and His attributes. The foundation of Rice is built on sand and Bob Enyart built his house on that same sand. Watch how they sink, watch how they sink!

The concept of Open Theism is only 28 years old. I need not say anything further except that I disagree with it and it is only 28 years old.

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

Dr. Norman Geisler's book ‘’Creating God in the Image of Man?’’ shows that Open Theism is a heresy and that the traditional attributes of God are true.

Did I mention that Open Theism was invented around 28 years ago?

I will leave the Open Theism debate for another place. The point of this was that IF Bob Enyart is a Bible scholar then he needs to join the ETS and debate others over at ETS.

He can apply here: http://www.etsjets.org/

Also, he needs to have more than just O.T. positions to debate.

Did I mention that Open Theism is around 28 years old and Dr. Rice is the first person to bring this concept over to the ETS for debate? Mind you, Rice is a 7th Day Adventist, who cannot even understand the basics of law and grace. Who is he to comment on God's attributes? The same goes for Enyart.

There are a few verses in the Bible that point to the idea that the future may not be totally settled in advance.

This is a Bible study I put together

BASIC BIBLICAL SUPPORT
FOR A PARTLY OPEN (undetermined) FUTURE


If men have free will, and free will choices contribute to the future, then the future must be partly open, partly unsettled, partly undetermined.

* God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be: Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3

* God changes His plans in response to changing circumstances: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10

* God's willingness to change His plans is considered one of His glorious attributes: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12-13

* God tests people to see what types of decisions they will make: Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; 2 Chron. 32:31

* God has had disappointments and has regretted how things turned out: Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 15:35

* God has expected things to happen that didn't come to pass: Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20

* God gets frustrated and grieved when he attempts to bring individuals into alignment with his will and they resist: Eze. 22:29-31; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; cf. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7; Acts 7:51

* The prayers of men have changed the plans of God (God changes the future: Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5

* God is said to have repented (changed His mind) multiple times in the Bible: Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:36; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 15:29, 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Jer. 4:28, 15:6, 18:8, 18:10, 20:16, 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14

* Prophecies are sometimes God foretelling what He Himself will later bring to pass. So they often have to do more with God's omnipotence to bring about His plans then merely foreseeing the future: Gen. 3:15; 1 Kin. 8:15, 8:20, 8:24, 13:32 (with 2 Kin. 23:1-3, 15-18); 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 1:9 (1 Chron. 6:4; 10, 15); 2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Isa. 5:19, 25:1-2, 37:26, 42:9 (with vs. 16); Jer. 29:10, 32:24, 32:28, 33:14-15, Lam. 3:37; Eze. 12:25, 17:24, 33:29, 33:33; Dan. 4:33, 4:37; Acts 3:18, 27:32-35; Rev. 17:17. This type of prophecy includes the prophecies of the Messiah. So His birth, the location of His birth, the miracle of His birth, were not accidents or merely foreseen events, but were the deliberate plan of God (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 9:6; 53:6; Acts 2:23, 4:28)

* The future is partly open (undetermined, uncertain): Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3; Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; Jdg. 2:20-22, Jdg. 3:4, Ex. 33:2, Ex. 34:24; 1 Sam. 2:30, 2 Chron. 12:6-7, 2 Chron. 16:9; 2 Chron. 32:31; Ps. 81:13-14; Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20

* The future is partly settled (determined, certain): Gen. 3:15; 1 Kin. 8:15, 8:20, 8:24, 13:32 (with 2 Kin. 23:1-3, 15-18); 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 1:9 (1 Chron. 6:4; 10, 15); 2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Isa. 5:19, 25:1-2, 37:26, 42:9 (with vs. 16); Jer. 29:10, 32:24, 32:28, 33:14-15, Lam. 3:37; Eze. 12:25, 17:24, 33:29, 33:33; Dan. 4:33, 4:37; Acts 3:18, 27:32-35; Rev. 17:17; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 9:6; 53:6; Acts 2:23, 4:28.

* The future is capable of changing: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10; Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Kin. 20:6; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19; Isa. 38:5

* Scriptures that say God has a past, present, and a future: Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8

* Scriptures that say God’s eternity is endless time, that is, time without beginning or end: Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14;

* Scriptures that say man's eternity is endless time: Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11;

* Scriptures that say eternity is endless time for Heavenly creatures: Rev. 4:8

* Eternity is time without end (endless time instead of timelessness): Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14; Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11;

....

I don't agree with Jesse on everything but this list is a good start. A lot of these verses were written a bit before 1980 by the way!

I was aware from reading my own Bible, long before 1980, that God is sometimes willing to change future events, in response to the prayers of one faithful man! I suppose you think I "invented" the open view at the age of 11.

 

[Delmar]

Man, I'm disappointed... Nobody even batted an eye at my Doug joke.

I wrote a response yesterday and I must have changed screens without hitting "submit reply". It probably won't be as funny now but here goes!

Question: What's the difference between Doug McBurney and a pitbull?


Answer: deoderant.

I never heard of a pitbull wearing deoderant?

 

[Delmar]

My attendance or lack thereof is not important.

The claim by the other poster that Bob Enyart is "phenomenal" in biblical teaching and that he is "one of the best in the country", is highly over-exaggerated claim and purely relative to the posters own "bias" towards him.

In their minds, Bob Enyart might be the "best in the country", but how does one go about proving that?

With my research and insight, I have concluded that he is in no way a theological scholar or a biblical scholar. He is primarily a political activist and I don't care for his approach, tactics, and theology.

That is my view and the view of my elders.

To the poster, he might be the best, but as I stated before, that is a purely relative statement and a completely unsubstantiated claim.

With my research and insight, I have concluded that you a clearly a genius:dunce:.

 

[Lighthouse]

I would rather not repeat it here since this site is affiliated with Bob Enyart. I will say one thing though, he should not be in a position of authority as a pastor.

Are you a coward?

How about some intellectual honesty?

You want to tell us something that somebody told you? Go ahead. There's no problem with that. Especially since you can get responses from people who actually know the man. And maybe even from Bob himself.

I would also like to add that the only biblical writing I have found from him was a paper called 'The Plot'. I am not sure if it was ever published, but please correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong. I have a copy of it.

If he has done other theological based books, please let me know. I have found all his other writings & articles to have been political in nature. Not my cup of tea.

Book-wise the only other thing he wrote was a fiction manuscript, and he got too busy to actually finish it, but sells what he did write. I've read it. It's decent, but I think it could be better.

The theological circles that I spoke to do not recognize him as a biblical author, scholar or theologian. I received the same response from all of them, that Bob Enyart is a political spokesman, anti-abortion activist and a (blank, blank, blank). Things I chose not to repeat here as I have been told this site is part of his organization.

Just type in a Google search with his name. Everything that comes up is related to politics and abortion.

As I said, go ahead and tell us what you heard.

P.S.
If you are only going on what others have told you, and you have not listened to his radio show, or watched some of the videos of his old TV show, or listened to some of his sermons, you are being very intellectually dishonest.

 

[Jefferson]

Looks like Nightsongs got stumped and then decided to bail out of this debate.

 

[chatmaggot]

With my research and insight, I have concluded that he is in no way a theological scholar or a biblical scholar. He is primarily a political activist and I don't care for his approach, tactics, and theology.

Can't a pastor stand up for what is right and expose evil?

Why is it that when someon who loves God does just that...they are then condemned for not preaching and being too political?

I have stated this before and I will state it here...

The reason why people (like Bob) seem to spend a lot of time on abortion and other "issues" is because that is where the spiritual battles are currently being fought.

If the issue was about legalizing rape...you would probably hear Bob speak on that issue because that will be where the battle resides. No one is arguing to keep rape illegal...because it isn't an issue. However, what is an issue is putting rapists to death.

 

[Nightsongs]

Looks like Nightsongs got stumped and then decided to bail out of this debate.

I decided that my efforts were futile because your core beliefs are grounded in bad theology. It would take a complete rejection of your bad theology in order to change your beliefs.

Your foundation is bad and you built a house on it already. Debating issues regarding the different rooms in the house is a waste of time. Get it??

 

[Jefferson]

I decided that my efforts were futile because your core beliefs are grounded in bad theology. It would take a complete rejection of your bad theology in order to change your beliefs.

Your foundation is bad and you built a house on it already. Debating issues regarding the different rooms in the house is a waste of time. Get it??

Does this mean the learned ones over at ETS do or do not have the courage to publicly display their debates?

 

[Nightsongs]

Does this mean the learned ones over at ETS do or do not have the courage to publicly display their debates?

I am not here to defend or promote ETS. I simply gave a reference to it, if someone wants to debate in favor of Open Theism, then they need to join ETS and state their case.

My point to you is that your core beliefs are based on bad theology. It would take a complete rejection of your bad theology in order to change your beliefs. In other words, your duties, walk and battles that you conduct in the name of "Christianity" are based on incorrect and misapplied teachings.

You are arguing Point K, when you need to go back to Point A and revisit why you are even at Point K. You have made Christianity into a political activist entity. That is where you are seriously wrong.

 

[chatmaggot]

I am not here to defend or promote ETS. I simply gave a reference to it, if someone wants to debate in favor of Open Theism, then they need to join ETS and state their case.

My point to you is that your core beliefs are based on bad theology. It would take a complete rejection of your bad theology in order to change your beliefs. In other words, your duties, walk and battles that you conduct in the name of "Christianity" are based on incorrect and misapplied teachings.

You are arguing Point K, when you need to go back to Point A and revisit why you are even at Point K. You have made Christianity into a political activist entity. That is where you are seriously wrong.

Could you provide a brief summary or a list of things that you believe represent bad theology from Bob or others here?

Do you think it is bad theology to stand up for the rights of the unborn when most people either don't care or want to kill babies?

Do you think it is bad theology to expose the evil being spewed from politicians? When Christians accept evil politicians because they will put an extra dollar in their pocket...then that is not being a consistent Christian.

 

[Jefferson]

I am not here to defend or promote ETS. I simply gave a reference to it, if someone wants to debate in favor of Open Theism, then they need to join ETS and state their case.

Wouldn't it be better for the masses for someone at ETS to debate Open Theism here on TOL? At least that way everyone would get to learn from the debates.

My point to you is that your core beliefs are based on bad theology. It would take a complete rejection of your bad theology in order to change your beliefs. In other words, your duties, walk and battles that you conduct in the name of "Christianity" are based on incorrect and misapplied teachings.

You are arguing Point K, when you need to go back to Point A and revisit why you are even at Point K. You have made Christianity into a political activist entity. That is where you are seriously wrong.

Are you prepared to debate your accusations against us? You had better be because, guess what Nightsongs? This is a debate forum, not a hit-and-run forum.