I have watched BobBobbins for some time now and believe that others on this forum should be better equipped in seeing what may be happening, from a perspective other than BobBobbins� while dialoging with him.
Dear CDFF members,
Please take the following statements I have compiled from 26 pages of BobBobbins� posts and imagine for a moment communicating to your husband or wife in like manner�
Imagine, as a parent or teacher, communicating to a child in this way�
You are the one who is the Pharisee�
For the sake of illustrating your error here�
The entirety of your argument is thrown completely out the window�
Your faulty exegesis of Matthew 19 leads to a totally erroneous understanding of the passage�
My point by point refutation of your article really wasn't for your benefit�
Your confusion appears to lie in not understanding�
Here again, your question illustrates your lack of understanding�
Your thinking illustrates that when you deviate so badly�
Are you yet without any spiritual understanding?
Are you a Pharisee?
Are you a false teacher?
It appears that you are consistently trying to trip up the true men of God with your unreasoned questioning�
Not to point out the obvious, but you haven't even made a feeble attempt�
If you are standing on the truth, then refute my points�
You might convince a handful of fools and simple minded folks with that style but everyone else sees clearly that you are defeated�
Over and over, I see ridiculous conclusions such as the one that you have drawn�
Sadly, the evidence shows�
You fail on two major fronts�
You demonstrate all of the traits/characteristics of the "stone thrower" from your article�
You are a FOOL, a self described STONE THROWER, a JUDGE without MERCY, and most glaringly a HYPOCRITE�
Your doctrines and teachings are those of an ANTIchrist�
I am trying to understand your position which is schizophrenic�
Perhaps, your lack of understanding is what condemns you�
Maybe you are a STONE THROWER�
All I can say is "wow." Talk about polluting a bored with off topic ranting�
Over and over, I see ridiculous conclusions such as the one that you have drawn�
Now, you are taking cover behind a woman's skirt�
I am challenging you to come out from behind that skirt�
Be a man and defend your article. Can you do that?
At the end of the day, I believe that you still fail�
In addition, I believe that you have no clear understanding�
You bring an unteachable spirit to the discussion�
Once again, you "gathered" wrong�
Since you have chosen to take a low road�
It's painful to have to be so tedious, but alas I guess you made it necessary�
Exposing your watered down middle of the road back side kissing teachings�
You boast now a victory you don't have! You have never addressed the scriptures i provided by point by point refutation because you are incapable�
Your teachings are weak�
You are cowardly!
With your continued childish cutting and pasting�
You have been warned�
He is merely another incompetent windbag..
Such a notion, in my eyes, seems intellectually incompetent and just plain lazy�
You have a glaring problem somewhere in your exegesis�
Due to sloppy interpretations such as the one that has just been offered�
Rather than humbling yourself to receive instruction�
Out of the abundance of the heart.. the mouth speaks�DEAR CDFF MEMBERS, IT IS IRONIC THAT THE POSTER SHOULD USE THIS PARTICULAR VERSE IN LIGHT OF WHAT HE HIMSELF HAS WRITTEN
Who is the liar here?
Contradiction after contradiction�
Lots of smoke but not much fire�
That you were so lacking in compassion in the first place�
Now, you want a gold star and a brownie for finally getting it right�
Everytime they hit their keyboards, the errors expose themselves. All I do is highlight them for the readers�.AGAIN, CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED WHEN POINTING OUT THE FAULTS OF OTHERS
Yours is an impotent god and a worthless gospel... a god with no power to save�
Rather than wasting "the whole world's time", why don't you go work out your own salvation�
He reasoned poorly just like you�
Is it even necessary for me to quote the scripture to prove such an elementary point?
Shouldn't anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" already understand such a foundational issue?
Personally, I find all of your statements blasphemous-but it�s the logical outcome of the reprobate anthropocentric mind�
That is YOUR god�
I have read many of your posts and I just shake my head at most of them. I never bother to respond since I wonder what is the point?
I really can't help but just shake my head�
Once again, you have come here teaching falsely�
As long as you keep spewing false doctrine/theology�
You are a woman -take responsibility for yourself and for the woman's role in a marriage�
If you are divorced, you are NOT an expert on making a marriage work, contrary to your opinion. We don't need to hear about what you think you learned. Not until you have proven yourself in the context of a new healthy marriage. Those who have been and stay married for years are the experts�.DEAR CDFF MEMBERS, HERE, I MUST INTERJECT THAT NOT ONLY IS THIS STATEMENT AN AD HOMINEM, (MANY OF THE STATEMENTS COMPILED HERE ARE) BUT THAT THE POSTER ALSO FALSELY CLAIMS TO REPRESENT EVERYONE ON THE FORUMS BY CLAIMING THAT �WE� ARE IN AGREEMENT �ANOTHER INFORMAL FALLACY.
ALSO,
SOLOMON, WHO QUITE POSSIBLY SINNED GREATER THAN PERHAPS ANYONE ELSE IN SCRIPTURE IN THE AREA OF MARRIAGE, DID, IN FACT, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, BRING ABOUT THE WORDS OF GOD HIMSELF ON THE SUBJECT OF MARRIAGE�. HENCE THE SONG OF SONGS
BobBobbins� words continued:
Post after post, you offer bad theology�
I have no personal vested interest in you one way or the other�
DEAR CDFF MEMBERS,
Communicating to your husband or wife in this manner?
Communicating to a child in this way?
How might this affect someone? Being spoken to in such a way, day after day, month after month, year after year?
How might this affect a congregation of people�say a church?
I would be interested to know how this has affected some of you?
DEAR CDFF MEMBERS,
Please notice that if, from BobBobbins� posts, you separate the scripture he has quoted and his textbook explanations of scripture, which can be found on a number of Reformed Theological Sites online (such as the Puritan Board), what you�re left with is a collection of BobBobbins� personal statements, many of which have been quoted above. This would be called rightly dividing the words of a man from alongside the Words of our Lord.
SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHOULD BE NOTED,
From my experience, I believe that out of 26 pages of BobBobbins� posts, which I read, not a single one dealt with what God has done in BobBobbins� own life. Not a single one of his posts describes, in a relational or transparent way, a close, personal, loving and growing relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, which is where true biblical teaching flows from.
DEAR CDFF MEMBERS,
I have not written this in order for any of you to belittle BobBobbins. On the contrary, I�ve written this in order that you might better love, in understanding and correction, one of your brothers in Christ, who is not only gifted, but who has given himself greatly to the pursuit of God�s Word on our behalf. I have however written this so that posters will not continue to feel intimidated or taken captive by BobBobbins� textbook theological and philosophical arguments, which, can easily become the whitewashing on a tomb full of a dead man�s bones.
� Love (Christ) is patient, love is kind. It (He) does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.� 1 Corinthians 13:4-7
�If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love (Christ), I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2
May each of us continue in the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Bob's first Private Message: I have stated that I would not address you on the forums. I have not. You claim that you are gracious, etc. I am asking you as a courtesy not to continue to address me or my posts to others on that specific thread. My reason is clear - you continue to willfully misrepresent me over and over. This is just plain dishonest.
When I last confronted you on this issue point by point, your response was to say that you couldn't be bothered to go back and quote my actual words. Again, this is just dishonest.
We can agree to disagree on theological matters As far as I am concerned, the sheer verbosity (15 consecutive posts) that you display is impossible to respond to in a coherent and concise fashion anyway. So, you can claim a victory by default, it matters not to me. I say this in love in sincerity to you, you demonstrate all of the negative qualities that you accuse others of having towards you and more.
I found it most curious and telling that in all 15 of your most recent posts, you simply ignored my post which gets to the meat of the matter. I am including it below for your perusal:
Here is a Paul Janz' teaching in syllogistic form.
A. Jesus commands - Do not divorce (except for fornication)
B. The disciples could not receive that saying.(i.e. it was too hard for them/ they didn't like it, etc.)
C. Therefore, Jesus changes his views to suit his disciples and permits divorce and remarriage for" physical and verbal abuse from a spouse . . . being married to an unbeliever who makes life a literal hell . . . marital unfaithfulness . . . the stress of being married to an alcoholic for 23 years . . . or living with a pornographer who refuses to repent and so on and on. But please "don't take it so lightly as to divorce for every whim and fancy. "
Anyone who believes that this is right, please step forward.
The entire article hinges upon this false foundation. Clearly, this is a sandy foundation. As such, the house that is built upon it can NOT stand.
Bob's first Private Message: I have stated that I would not address you on the forums. I have not. You claim that you are gracious, etc. I am asking you as a courtesy not to continue to address me or my posts to others on that specific thread. My reason is clear - you continue to willfully misrepresent me over and over. This is just plain dishonest.
When I last confronted you on this issue point by point, your response was to say that you couldn't be bothered to go back and quote my actual words. Again, this is just dishonest.
We can agree to disagree on theological matters As far as I am concerned, the sheer verbosity (15 consecutive posts) that you display is impossible to respond to in a coherent and concise fashion anyway. So, you can claim a victory by default, it matters not to me. I say this in love in sincerity to you, you demonstrate all of the negative qualities that you accuse others of having towards you and more.
I found it most curious and telling that in all 15 of your most recent posts, you simply ignored my post which gets to the meat of the matter. I am including it below for your perusal:
Here is a Paul Janz' teaching in syllogistic form.
A. Jesus commands - Do not divorce (except for fornication)
B. The disciples could not receive that saying.(i.e. it was too hard for them/ they didn't like it, etc.)
C. Therefore, Jesus changes his views to suit his disciples and permits divorce and remarriage for" physical and verbal abuse from a spouse . . . being married to an unbeliever who makes life a literal hell . . . marital unfaithfulness . . . the stress of being married to an alcoholic for 23 years . . . or living with a pornographer who refuses to repent and so on and on. But please "don't take it so lightly as to divorce for every whim and fancy. "
Anyone who believes that this is right, please step forward.
The entire article hinges upon this false foundation. Clearly, this is a sandy foundation. As such, the house that is built upon it can NOT stand.
I am reaching out to you again privately. As you know, I did this once before. Unfortunately, not too much avail. Nevertheless, I am taking the risk of doing so once again.
I am going to reiterate, I have nothing against you personally. I am not your enemy. I recognize you as a sister in Christ. I've given you the courtesy and respect of a public apology when I felt that my motives may have strayed even for a moment. I never received the courtesy of your apology either publicly or privately. I did find how both you and Paul handled yourselves offensive to me and Singer as well. However, neither you nor Paul ever took responsibility. I do not hold a grudge against either of you.
Having said all that, I will continue whenever I feel it appropriate to address your posts primarily as it relates to theological issues. I do this to many folks not just you. It's not about you, personally. I will also most likely continue to defend my posts should you elect to respond in a contrary way. It's necessary for the benefit of other readers.
It would be my hope as I have stated before that you and I could agree to disagree over theological matters. In an ideal world, I would embrace you as a friend but I have no expectation of your willingness to do the same.
Gods grace and blessings to you.
End of message
If he addressed people on threads like this, there wouldn't be such a controversy...and I told hims as such in the response I sent him which I posted earlier on this thread.
I am reaching out to you again privately. As you know, I did this once before. Unfortunately, not too much avail. Nevertheless, I am taking the risk of doing so once again.
I am going to reiterate, I have nothing against you personally. I am not your enemy. I recognize you as a sister in Christ. I've given you the courtesy and respect of a public apology when I felt that my motives may have strayed even for a moment. I never received the courtesy of your apology either publicly or privately. I did find how both you and Paul handled yourselves offensive to me and Singer as well. However, neither you nor Paul ever took responsibility. I do not hold a grudge against either of you.
Having said all that, I will continue whenever I feel it appropriate to address your posts primarily as it relates to theological issues. I do this to many folks not just you. It's not about you, personally. I will also most likely continue to defend my posts should you elect to respond in a contrary way. It's necessary for the benefit of other readers.
It would be my hope as I have stated before that you and I could agree to disagree over theological matters. In an ideal world, I would embrace you as a friend but I have no expectation of your willingness to do the same.
Gods grace and blessings to you.
End of message
If he addressed people on threads like this, there wouldn't be such a controversy...and I told hims as such in the response I sent him which I posted earlier on this thread.
Bob's last private message to me after I responded to him (which I posted earlier):
If you have a question about something that I have written, I am happy to answer it. That goes for you or anyone else.. assuming it's a sincere question. I don't think that I have ever remarked that somebody shouldn't ask me questions. Correct me if I am wrong.
There is much that goes on behind the scenes that you are not privy to. When I feel that somebody misunderstands what I have written or things get ugly, I reach out to them privately. I even did so with Paul. I requested the opportunity to speak to him by phone. He ignored me all together. I have also received a lot of very positive private feedback from people who did not want to be part of the dialogues directly.
I have a direct style. I have no doubt that some folks may not like that about me. I have tried many ways and methods over the years of sugar coating the truth for people. Rarely, were the results any different. I really feel this has less to do with style and more to do with substance. You will also notice that in some instances, it was me calling someone else out for their comment and they simply didn't like that fact.
I find that many folks here have no real business giving council or teaching the word but they boldly do so anyway. When this happens, it subjects everyone who will ever read that post to misinformation. A large portion of the threads are not theological in nature. If people want to banter about experiences and opinions there it makes no difference to me. I defend theological issues.
I know you could not resist suggesting that I am an arrogant sexist. However, if you will recall, the first dialogue that I ever entered into here was with a man over his false teaching. I don't see gender when I respond. You will just have to take me at my word on that.
My comments and Singer's had a very different flavor to them..for instance, calling someone "bald" is not an approach that I would ever use. I think many times that you do not view my posts objectively.
If you want to express your thoughts to me even the negative ones, my door is open for you. **** did so the other day and I wrote her a nice email in response. I am quite sure that anyone who has made even the smallest effort with me can attest to the fact that I am not nearly as villainous as some may wish to believe. Either party can always reach out privately. It works both ways.
Cheers.
End of message
Bob's words: "I find that many folks here have no real business giving council or teaching the word but they boldly do so anyway."
1. I tried from the very beginning of my interaction with you to ask you politely as a courtesy to quit addressing me and I stated my reasons very plainly
"You continue to willfully misrepresent me over and over. This is just plain dishonest."
"When I last confronted you on this issue point by point, your response was to say that you couldn't be bothered to go back and quote my actual words. Again, this is just dishonest."
NOTiCE: This still has not changed. Just tonight, you did this again.
2. The great lengths that I have gone to with you personally even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might be a sister in Christ. ( I no longer hold that opinion. )
3. I do not have a personal grudge against her and am not operating from that perspective.
4. She has never shown any humility or apologized to me.
5. I have stated my intention plainly to her publicly and also privately.
and so on and so on and so on.... and still she persists.
Thank you for showing yet another side to my character. Thank you also for showing that you are untrustworthy with private personal correspondence. I will not be using that method to communicate with you ever again.
"My point was to show how people jump to conclusions without understanding what they read. Either they don't read the whole post because they think they know the intent or they read what they want into it."
If read in the most straightforward way, your post was indeed a compliment to Bob. However you meant it sarcastically. So this jumping to conclusions when they don't understand something....Is that sort of the same as when you claim those who are reformed have no reason to do evangelism? That something you clearly don't understand. I'm just wonderfing if that's the same type of thing you describe here.
"No, it's not okay that I did it. Just like it's not ok for Bob or anyone else (whether I agree with their Biblical view or not) to ridicule another human being or to disrespect Scripture. It's also not okay for people to encourage that type of behavior."
So then you did see a problem when you condemned him for doing what you were doing in the very same post your were condemning him?
"After my initial posts on this thread, it was clear that people are looking at Bob through tainted glasses...poor Bob--how dare anyone publicly address his public denigration of others. Since he chose to use all those phrases listed in the OP in the public threads, it's appropriate for him to be addressed in a public thread, ESPECIALLY after so many people have indicated they had private conversations with him over his methods."
Nah, I thought it would have been best for the OP to take his concerns to Bob privately. I ask you this...Who of us would look any better if our seemingly worst posts were all brought together without context? Certainly not yours. Certainly not mine. If you disagree, I will gladly dig up your posts for you and show you otherwise.
"Instead of encouraging people who post to use uplifting words or just present facts or counterpoints without ridicule, they patted Bob on his back for his techniques. His techniques with so many people he disagrees with is to denigrate them, in public and private. The posters criticized the OP for not confronting Bob in private."
Ask yourself if your posts exercise what you are preaching here. Ask yourself if even your posts in this very thread do. Even if what Bob was doing is unbiblical, you seem to think it's okay for you to give an unbiblical response to him because he did it first...
"Too many people have chosen to degrade their views on threads by jumping to name calling and ridicule. A very sad statement for a site that is supposed to be Christian. It's one thing to differ in views or interpretations...it's another thing to throw out personal attacks."
As I posted earlier in this thread from the private message I sent you:
"I do not have to apologize for my views or posting Scripture. I am not aware of anything I wrote that requires me to apologize to you or Singer. The Holy Ghost has not convicted me of any wrong posting. I will apologize for the negative thoughts that I wanted to write but the Holy Spirit would not allow me to write."
I will apologize on my posting on your capability...because I chose not to obey the Holy Spirit's direction.
No worry on messaging me, I blocked you as I have no desire to communicate with you no matter if I agree or disagree with you.
