Bob George

Post by **_Homer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:11 pm

I'm naming names! Bob George outdid himself today. He informed a caller that not only the Book of Acts is not to be used for doctrine, but neither are the Gospels! This is borderline blasphemy to my ears. Is this not speaking "against" Christ? Comments?

As I understand him, he is not a dispensationalist.

Post by **_Christopher** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:02 am

I hope someone who knows answers this Homer, because one of the Wednesday night classes at the church I'm currently attending is getting ready to go through his book "Classic Christianity". I'd also like to hear any comments on that as well. I've never heard or read anything from the man.

Post by **_mv01** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:35 am

Bob George teaches that 1 John 1;9n does not apply to believers but non believers .Also he teaches that Jesus' teachings were all under the old covenant so they dont really apply to Christians today.Probably the most contraversial is his teaching that since Jesus atoned for sins at the cross that Christians only have to ask for forgiveness once at conversion.after that if you sin just pray and thank Jesus that he took away that sin at the cross.

Post by **_Sean** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:51 am

Sounds like ultra-dispensationalism to me.

Post by **_Benjamin Ho** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:00 am

There is a thread on ultra-dispensationalism at:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=426

Post by **_Christopher** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:29 pm

I've listened to some snippets on his website http://www.realanswers.net/realanswersaudio.html

It sounds like he teaches that the things Jesus taught the disciples before the cross are not for new covenant believers, but for those that were still under the old covenant. In other words, nothing Jesus said before he died and was resurrected applies to Christians. Sounds like hyper-dispensationalism to me.

Listen to the "Confession and the Lord's prayer" snippet, it's only about 10 minutes long.

I guess in his view, we should also ignore the sermon on the mount as well. That's funny, I thought Jesus said....

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV

Too bad the disciples didn't realize that meant "all things after the cross". They could've avoided leading so many people into "legalism" through their epistles.

Post by **_Homer** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:03 pm

Christopher,

You are correct in everything you said. I quit listening to him when he advised a caller that she didn't need to forgive someone, as Jesus repeatedly taught, because Jesus taught law which doesn't apply to us (gag). I still hear him occasionally when I'm busy and don't get to the radio; he comes on after another program I listen to.

I wonder how he thinks we can be Jesus' disciples (i.e. students, apprentices) if we are to ignore all He taught! I would call him and challenge him but he will not talk to anyone who contradicts him.

Post by **_Christopher** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:42 pm

The more I listen to his archives, the worst it gets.

It seems his favorite thing to say is "it is finished", meaning why do we keep confessing sins and asking forgiveness when they were already forgiven before you were ever born?

He says of those who want to keep short accounts with God (i.e., an abiding Father/child relationship):

1. They make a mockery of the cross.
2. Trample the Son of God under foot (Heb 10).
3. They are like the Pharisees.
4. Playing religious games, playing church.
5. Haven't truly repented and accepted God's forgiveness.
6. I don't know what Jesus you have in your heart, but it's not the Jesus of the bible.

In other words, if you don't believe as he does, you cannot be saved.

These statements, and more, can be found in his lecture "Understanding 1 John 1:9" at http://www.realanswers.net/realanswersaudio.html

Careful, he's a slick talker who sets up an army of straw men and mows them down with an uzi loaded with proof texts.

I usually don't like to speak out against specific teachers, but I believe he takes his view of unconditional eternal security to an unhealthy and divisive level.

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:12 pm

I don't know anything about Bob George, but I debated with several ultra-dispensationalists in another forum. They gave up on me as being a hopleless legalist. Their concept of a "legalist" was anyone who believed in carrying out any instructions at all, whether it be those of Jesus Himself, or those given by Peter or James, or anyone other than the letters of Paul which they considered to be "addressed to the church".

Their idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth" was that all of the gospels, including the teachings of Jesus, as well as many of the epistles were "addressed to the Jews" and therefore do not apply to "believers".
I was asked, "Why are you promoting legalism? Are you a Jew? If not, then listen only to [certain] letters of Paul which were addressed to the church."

It reminds me of the early gnostic, Marcion, who rejected the gospels as "Jewish fables", and accepted only certain letters of Paul. Other gnostics composed books which they forged under the names of various apostles. This gnostic activity led to the fourth century church forming a "canon of scripture", a new concept unknown prior to that (at least as far as a "New Testament" canon is concerned). Some of the writings which the early church questioned (James, Revelation, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John) became part of the canon. But some of the writings which the early church used, (e.g. Clement's letter to the Corinthians) were excluded.

One earlier writer (perhaps it was Irenaeus) claimed that he could prove Marcion in error even from the writings which he accepted!

Post by **_Sean** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:04 pm

Paidion wrote:I don't know anything about Bob George, but I debated with several ultra-dispensationalists in another forum. They gave up on me as being a hopleless legalist. Their concept of a "legalist" was anyone who believed in carrying out any instructions at all, whether it be those of Jesus Himself, or those given by Peter or James, or anyone other than the letters of Paul which they considered to be "addressed to the church".

Their idea of "rightly dividing the word of truth" was that all of the gospels, including the teachings of Jesus, as well as many of the epistles were "addressed to the Jews" and therefore do not apply to "believers".
I was asked, "Why are you promoting legalism? Are you a Jew? If not, then listen only to [certain] letters of Paul which were addressed to the church."

It reminds me of the early gnostic, Marcion, who rejected the gospels as "Jewish fables", and accepted only certain letters of Paul. Other gnostics composed books which they forged under the names of various apostles. This gnostic activity led to the fourth century church forming a "canon of scripture", a new concept unknown prior to that (at least as far as a "New Testament" canon is concerned). Some of the writings which the early church questioned (James, Revelation, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John) became part of the canon. But some of the writings which the early church used, (e.g. Clement's letter to the Corinthians) were excluded.

One earlier writer (perhaps it was Irenaeus) claimed that he could prove Marcion in error even from the writings which he accepted!

Although not as obvious, Paul said many of the same things as Jesus, Peter, James and John. What do they say when you quote passages were Paul quotes Jesus? Or when Paul tells us to love one another, as Jesus said?