The Plot by Bob Enyart

[Idolater]

The debate about whether one can lose their salvation is centuries old. If you were undecided about the issue and wanted to educate yourself on it in an attempt to figure out who is right and who is wrong, what you'd likely do, as a first step, is go to get a book or two or three on the subject from various authors on both sides of the issue to see if you could determine who makes the better argument. What you would find is the authors from either side have certain passages that they quote to support their side of the issue. One author's proof texts are another author's problem texts and that all the books, more or less, follow the same pattern where they spend most of their time emphasizing their proof texts and spent a little bit of time explaining how their problem texts don't teach what they seem to teach by a plain reading of the text.

Those who argue that we can lose our salvation quote passages from any and every book of the bible aside from those written by Paul and insist that they mean what they say while any passages taken from Paul's epistles are either removed from their context or are explained away by some other means..

Those who argue that we cannot lose our salvation use passages from the Pauline Epistles and all passages elsewhere in the bible are either removed from their context or are explained away by some other means.

It is only those of us who rightly divide the word of truth and understand that Jesus, Peter, James and John all taught the gospel of the Kingdom exclusively to Israel and that it is Paul who taught the gospel of Grace to the whole world after Israel was cut off, who can take all of the passages that both sides of the debate use as proof texts and understand that THEY ALL mean what they say! It is perfectly understandable to see Peter teaching that people can lose their salvation because his was a gospel of law. It would be a problem for us Mid-Acts Dispensationalists if Peter didn't teach that and thus, all of what were problem texts for the Baptist or Calvinist are proof texts for us. We have no problem texts! The whole bible teaches pretty much just exactly what it seems to be teaching when you just read it. The trick is simply to understand that when you are reading an epistle written by Peter, James or John, that you're reading someone else's mail.

Or to a bishop, which is why the Pauline epistles 1st & 2nd Timothy and Titus are problem texts for Mid-Acts Dispensationalists. Even the passage "rightly dividing" is found right within one of these epistles, which is someone else's mail, mail written specifically to and specifically for two men who held the "office of a bishop" (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1 KJB)

No Mid-Acts Dispensationalist even admit such an office exists.

The Joys of Catholicism

You don't know true love and happiness then.Yep, couldn't be happier. I missed Mass so much! I'm so glad it's back baby! Public Mass that is. Of course all along every day priests celebrated the Mass on behalf of the Church, even though for health reasons, due to the pandemic, we couldn't...

theologyonline.com

And office is not only duty (office literally means duty) but also power. Office means rights and responsibilities. When an office's power is exercised, it is exercised by the officeholder, with a small handful of exceptions (as with all other Earthly offices).

One of the powers of the office of a bishop is to be "expert witnesses" for what Catholicism actually is and teaches. This book The Plot doesn't claim to be such an authoritative source for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. It is authored by a man who identifies as Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, but who does not speak for other Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, who do not regard his word as authoritative.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

Paul teaches us that the Holy Spirit has been given to us as earnest. If you've ever bought a house before, you understand how earnest payments work. You pay earnest in order to assure the other party that you aren't wasting their time by getting involved in an expensive and complex transaction that you don't intend to follow through with. If the transaction goes through as planned, the earnest is applied toward the transaction but but if you do not follow through with the transaction, you forfeit the earnest payment.

Earnest payments worked the same way in Paul's day. If the paying party failed to follow through, the earnest payment is forfeit. It is what is put up as a guarantee. In fact, "earnest" and "guarantee" are synonymous in this context.

The earnest is given today in what is called the sacrament of Confirmation. In the first century Baptism and Confirmation and the Eucharist were all celebrated with a new Christian all at once on the same day, but nowadays Baptism is first followed by Confirmation later on, unless you're an adult convert in which case you'd be Baptized, Confirmed (the earnest of the Holy Spirit given) and take Communion all in the same day, like in the first century.

King James:

• 2 Corinthians 1:22 who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
• 2 Corinthians 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
• Ephesians 1:13b in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

New King James:

• 2 Corinthians 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
• Corinthians 5:5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
• Ephesians 1:13b in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Those are all verses talking about Confirmation, and anointing with the Holy Spirit.

As for some scenerio where God could ever forfeit this earnest payment, there isn't one because He is Himself the earnest payment. The bible teaches that we are sealed by the Spirit "unto the Day of Redemption". For anyone so sealed not to make it that far would require that God forsake Himself which, of course, He cannot do.

Clete

Mortal sins are exceptionally rare.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Or to a bishop, which is why the Pauline epistles 1st & 2nd Timothy and Titus are problem texts for Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Even the passage "rightly dividing" is found right within one of these epistles, which is someone else's mail, mail written specifically to and specifically for two men who held the "office of a bishop" (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1 KJB)

"EPISKOPES" just means "overseership." A "superintendent," if you will.

No Mid-Acts Dispensationalist even admit such an office exists.

You're confusing the fact that most modern churches (barring the RCC, et al) don't have such an office with whether MADs admit they existed at one point in time.

And office is not only duty (office literally means duty) but also power. Office means rights and responsibilities. When an office's power is exercised, it is exercised by the officeholder, with a small handful of exceptions (as with all other Earthly offices).

One of the powers of the office of a bishop is to be "expert witnesses" for what Catholicism actually is and teaches.

And?

This book The Plot doesn't claim to be such an authoritative source for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Why should it?

It's not part of "Catholicism," and thus, does not abide by the same "house rules." (Oh wait, that's literally what "oikonomia" means... which is where we get our word "economy," or "dispensation"....)

It is authored by a man who identifies as Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, but who does not speak for other Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, who do not regard his word as authoritative.

So what?

Look, we get it. You don't like the fact that the Plot isn't the same kind of "authoritative" that you think it should be.

But you refuse to read it, which is fine in and of itself, and then you complain about what it says.

The phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover," seems fitting here.

The earnest is given today in what is called the sacrament of Confirmation. In the first century Baptism and Confirmation and the Eucharist were all celebrated with a new Christian all at once on the same day, but nowadays Baptism is first followed by Confirmation later on, unless you're an adult convert in which case you'd be Baptized, Confirmed (the earnest of the Holy Spirit given) and take Communion all in the same day, like in the first century.

In other words, the Catholics have taken something from the Bible and turned it into a ritual.

Those are all verses talking about Confirmation, and anointing with the Holy Spirit.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Mortal sins are exceptionally rare.

"Mortal sins" only exist within Catholic theology.

What Clete said is correct:

Thus any argument against me will do one or both of two things.
1. They will quote from anything and everything but the Pauline epistles.
2. "Interpret" Paul writings. (i.e. They'll find some way to explain how Paul didn't mean what he seems to have meant or remove what he did say from its context.)

So long as anyone debating against my position stays within that format, he is arguing MY position and not his own. In such a debate I am the only one with zero problem texts.

So far, you're par for the course, @Idolater.

 

[Clete]

Or to a bishop, which is why the Pauline epistles 1st & 2nd Timothy and Titus are problem texts for Mid-Acts Dispensationalists. Even the passage "rightly dividing" is found right within one of these epistles, which is someone else's mail, mail written specifically to and specifically for two men who held the "office of a bishop" (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1 KJB)

No Mid-Acts Dispensationalist even admit such an office exists.

The Joys of Catholicism

You don't know true love and happiness then.Yep, couldn't be happier. I missed Mass so much! I'm so glad it's back baby! Public Mass that is. Of course all along every day priests celebrated the Mass on behalf of the Church, even though for health reasons, due to the pandemic, we couldn't...

theologyonline.com

And office is not only duty (office literally means duty) but also power. Office means rights and responsibilities. When an office's power is exercised, it is exercised by the officeholder, with a small handful of exceptions (as with all other Earthly offices).

One of the powers of the office of a bishop is to be "expert witnesses" for what Catholicism actually is and teaches. This book The Plot doesn't claim to be such an authoritative source for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. It is authored by a man who identifies as Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, but who does not speak for other Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, who do not regard his word as authoritative.

The earnest is given today in what is called the sacrament of Confirmation. In the first century Baptism and Confirmation and the Eucharist were all celebrated with a new Christian all at once on the same day, but nowadays Baptism is first followed by Confirmation later on, unless you're an adult convert in which case you'd be Baptized, Confirmed (the earnest of the Holy Spirit given) and take Communion all in the same day, like in the first century.

Those are all verses talking about Confirmation, and anointing with the Holy Spirit.

Mortal sins are exceptionally rare.

As is the case with a great many of your posts, as well as the lion's share of every distinctively Catholic doctrine that exists, every point can be responded to with one single sentence....


Saying it doesn't make it so!


If you care to make an actual argument, I'd be glad to read it. As for this Catholic stupidity (literal stupidity), keep it to yourself. I'm not the least bit interested in it. By your own admission, as well as that of practically every Catholic author that has ever penned a book, there is no requirement for your doctrine to be rationally consistent and so what in the world you're doing on a debate forum is anyone's guess. One thing's for certain, you will never even make any attempt whatsoever to refute a syllable of what Bob Enyart wrote in The Plot.

 

[Clete]

So, I'm worried that @Unsettler has disappeared on us.

Why is it that you can't get rid of the mindless time wasters but the worthwhile ones hardly ever stick around?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, I'm worried that @Unsettler has disappeared on us.

Why is it that you can't get rid of the mindless time wasters but the worthwhile ones hardly ever stick around?

He was temp banned due to the profanity abbreviation. He'll be back in a few days.

 

[Clete]

He was temp banned due to the profanity abbreviation. He'll be back in a few days.

 

[Clete]

He was temp banned due to the profanity abbreviation. He'll be back in a few days.

So just how long was this temp ban for? He hasn't posted in nearly a week.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So just how long was this temp ban for? He hasn't posted in nearly a week.

Ban expired Saturday.

 

[Clete]

Ban expired Saturday.

Great

 

[Clete]

I have a great idea!

Whenever someone interesting comes along who is open to the ideas that we are trying to disseminate with this website, let's embarrass them like crazy the first time they say the wrong thing, no matter how minor the offense it creates! That way they'll leave and never come back and we can sit here and discuss things that we 100% agree on between ourselves, because that's not boring at all!

 

[Nick M]

The earnest is given today in what is called the sacrament of Confirmation. In the first century Baptism and Confirmation and the Eucharist were all celebrated with a new Christian

And Paul had to rebuke his audience for what they were doing.

 

[Idolater]

And Paul had to rebuke his audience for what they were doing.

So 1st Corinthians 10 and 11 where he handles the Church's celebration of the Eucharist is rebuking them? Like, Stop doing this? Rather he says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." There's no end to the Eucharist until He comes. Nonstop. Everlasting. Like the New Covenant. He absolutely was not rebuking the Church for celebrating the Eucharist "when ye (plural) come together in the church", he was doing the opposite, ensuring that they would continue this sacrament of Communion, from the word common, meaning what we the Church do together, when as Jesus said, we are "gathered together in my name". "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

 

[glorydaz]

So 1st Corinthians 10 and 11 where he handles the Church's celebration of the Eucharist is rebuking them? Like, Stop doing this? Rather he says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." There's no end to the Eucharist until He comes. Nonstop. Everlasting. Like the New Covenant. He absolutely was not rebuking the Church for celebrating the Eucharist "when ye (plural) come together in the church", he was doing the opposite, ensuring that they would continue this sacrament of Communion, from the word common, meaning what we the Church do together, when as Jesus said, we are "gathered together in my name". "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

The Catholic church took a remembrance to the point of idolatry, as I recall from my time there.

 

[Idolater]

The Catholic church took a remembrance to the point of idolatry, as I recall from my time there.

You mean the Real Presence, how we believe that He is really present upon the words of consecration? when the celebrant quotes Jesus, saying, "This is My Body"? that the host truly then becomes for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[glorydaz]

You mean the Real Presence, how we believe that He is really present upon the words of consecration? when the celebrant quotes Jesus, saying, "This is My Body"? that the host truly then becomes for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

yes, I‘m referring to that form of idolatr.

 

[Idolater]

yes, I‘m referring to that form of idolatr.

Vincent of Lerins said that heretics always come up with some novel doctrine which they prove with Scriptural proof-texts. Interesting thing about denying the Real Presence, is not that it is novel, but that there are no proof-texts for it, in fact, all the concerning texts instead plainly prove the Real Presence. It's quite a unique heresy in that regard.

 

[Clete]

Vincent of Lerins said that heretics always come up with some novel doctrine which they prove with Scriptural proof-texts. Interesting thing about denying the Real Presence, is not that it is novel, but that there are no proof-texts for it, in fact, all the concerning texts instead plainly prove the Real Presence. It's quite a unique heresy in that regard.

Yeah, except that there are no such proof-texts.

 

[Idolater]

Yeah, except that there are no such proof-texts.

That's what I said. That's why it's interesting when people try to prove from the Bible that the Real Presence is wrong or false or fake or phony or fabricated or fictional. The preponderance of all concerning verses prima facie plainly means the Real Presence is true. Quick check on Church history corroborates that it's what the whole Church, everywhere, and always believed as well. Initial plausibility for the Real Presence is spectacularly high, and every defeater offered has very low initial plausibility.

 

[Clete]

That's what I said. That's why it's interesting when people try to prove from the Bible that the Real Presence is wrong or false or fake or phony or fabricated or fictional. The preponderance of all concerning verses prima facie plainly means the Real Presence is true. Quick check on Church history corroborates that it's what the whole Church, everywhere, and always believed as well. Initial plausibility for the Real Presence is spectacularly high, and every defeater offered has very low initial plausibility.

Let me state it in more explicit terms for you....

There are no verses that plainly mean that the real presence is true.

If you think otherwise, you're delusional.

 

[Derf]

That's what I said. That's why it's interesting when people try to prove from the Bible that the Real Presence is wrong or false or fake or phony or fabricated or fictional. The preponderance of all concerning verses prima facie plainly means the Real Presence is true. Quick check on Church history corroborates that it's what the whole Church, everywhere, and always believed as well. Initial plausibility for the Real Presence is spectacularly high, and every defeater offered has very low initial plausibility.

The real presence is in His body—the church.