Enyartism

[Idolater]

Named for the late Pastor Bob Enyart of happy memory, who originated, created, authored and developed it. It is a system of doctrine developed with the Enyartian method, also originated by Enyart.

Anything (whatsoever) that originates from Enyart is Enyartic, and everything all together which originates from Enyart, constitutes Enyarticity. Enyarticity is the total domain of anything that originates from Enyart, depends on Enyart, or is intelligible only because of Enyart.

The study of Enyartism is called Enyartology, and one who studies Enyartism is an Enyartologist.

The study of the Enyartian method (but not necessarily Enyartism) is Enyartianology, and one who practices this is an Enyartianologist. Furthermore, one who studies the Enyartian method in order to try to improve upon it, is practicing Enyartianologianism, and is an Enyartianologianist.

However, Enyartism itself is also not monolithic and unchanging, but can be developed further, advanced, improved, refined, and/or revised, either through the application of Enyart's own Enyartian method, or through some other methodology or framework. If this work uses the Enyartian method it is called Enyartianism, and one who does this work is an Enyartianist. An Enyartianist is one who uses the Enyartian method, believes in Enyartism, and studies Enyartism. In contrast, Enyartology need not result in refinements to Enyartism, it can merely be the study of Enyartism, or, as Enyartism develops into different versions and revisions, it can be the study of Enyartisms.

One can study Enyartism(s) without accepting any version of Enyartism—you can be an Enyartologist without being an Enyartist.

One can theoretically use the Enyartian method without being an Enyartist (you might believe in Enyart's Enyartian method, and use it to develop a new non-Enyartistic system or doctrine using Enyart's Enyartian method). You would be Enyartian (in method), but not an Enyartist, nor necessarily an Enyartologist (if you don't use the Enyartian method to study Enyartism).

One who uses the Enyartian method to study Enyartism is both Enyartian in their method, and also an Enyartologist, but they would still have to accept, promote and/or practice Enyartism to be an Enyartist, and an Enyartianist (one who uses the Enyartian method, to study Enyartism, and who also believes Enyartism). iow you could use the Enyartian method (and be Enyartian), study Enyartism (and be an Enyartologist), but not believe Enyartism, and so not be an Enyartist (or an Enyartianist).

And the last piece is Enyartismology, which is the advancement of Enyartism without using the Enyartian methodology to do so, but instead using some other methodology or analytic framework. An Enyartismologist would be an Enyartist who is using something other than Enyartian methodology to develop Enyartism further.

» I had some AI models condense and distill the above for easier reading:

Term	Meaning
Enyartism	The doctrinal system attributed to Enyart
Enyartian method	Enyart’s method of reasoning or interpretation
Enyartology	Study of Enyartism
Enyartianology	Study of the Enyartian method
Enyartist	One who accepts or advocates Enyartism
Enyartian	One who uses the Enyartian method
Enyartianist	An Enyartist who also develops Enyartism using the Enyartian method
Enyartismologist	An Enyartist who develops Enyartism using another method

• Enyartism: the substantive ideas.
• Enyartian method: the way those ideas are developed or defended.
• Enyartology: study of the ideas.
• Enyartianology: study of the method.
• Enyartianism: revision of the doctrine through the method.
• Enyartismology: revision of the doctrine through a different method.

Enyartism is the system of doctrine attributed to the late Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church, who originated and developed it through what may be called the Enyartian method.
Enyartic describes anything originating from, depending upon, or intelligible through Enyart. The total domain of such things is Enyarticity.
Enyartology is the study of Enyartism. An Enyartologist studies Enyartism, whether or not they accept it.
Enyartianology is the study of the Enyartian method. An Enyartianologist studies that method, whether or not they accept Enyartism.
Enyartism may be revised, refined, or extended. When this is done through the Enyartian method, it is Enyartianism; when it is done through another method, it is Enyartismology.

The above is set out as a formal taxonomic system. It is a vocabulary to categorize every possible relationship a person can have with Pastor Enyart's work. It is a precise exercise in nomenclature. It attempts to transform a theological legacy into an exhaustive, and intellectually rigorous formal logic system.

Next up: What is Enyartism (as a system of doctrine)? and what is the Enyartian method of Biblical interpretation and reasoning?

I offer this thread in honor of Pastor Enyart. I think he deserves to have his name attached to his theological legacy.

 

[Idolater]

What is Enyartism (as a system of doctrine)?

First things first, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism (or MAD), Acts 9 Dispensationalism, or simply Acts 9erism, is Enyartism.

 

[Derf]

First things first, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism (or MAD), Acts 9 Dispensationalism, or simply Acts 9erism, is Enyartism.

It wasn't original with Pastor Enyart. Other names for it are Bullingerism, after E.W. Bullinger, or hyperdispensationaliam. Bob did a doctoral treatise on it, which he and his organization have sold under the name, The Plot. It's worth the read, and probably worth the donation because they do a lot of good podcasts and other things, but I'm not sure if the content as a book is worth the price (no offense intended--I'm critical of theological books generally).

 

[Nick M]

The doctrinal system attributed to Enyart

He learned it from the apostle Paul.

 

[Idolater]

It wasn't original with Pastor Enyart. Other names for it are Bullingerism, after E.C. Bullinger, or hyperdispensationaliam.

I'm familiar. Enyartists here however, do not identify as either Bullingerists or Hyper-Dispensationalists, and from my reading of them (and I could be wrong), they take those terms to be pejorative, and that's why they don't identify as either. 'Enyartism' is offered respectfully about them and their doctrine.

Bob did a doctoral treatise on it, which he and his organization have sold under the name, The Plot. It's worth the read, and probably worth the donation because they do a lot of good podcasts and other things, but I'm not sure if the content as a book is worth the price (no offense intended--I'm critical of theological books generally).

Thank you for introducing The Plot to the thread, as it is the formative if not foundational literary work of Enyartism, and also presents the blueprint of Enyartian methodology. This I infer, from engaging with directly and from reading TOL's many Enyartists over the years. I have not read the book.

=

He learned it from the apostle Paul.

Nick is an Enyartist and an Enyartian, he believes in Enyartism the system of doctrine, and uses the Enyartian method to read and interpret Scripture.

 

[Right Divider]

It wasn't original with Pastor Enyart. Other names for it are Bullingerism, after E.C. Bullinger, or hyperdispensationaliam.

Misinformation at best... a bald-faced lie, more likely.

Bullinger was NOT... I repeat... NOT a Mid-Acts dispensationalist (as was Bob Enyart).

There is a HUGE difference between the utter confusion of the Acts 28 position which Bullinger held and the firmly Biblical Mid-Acts dispensationalism of Bob Enyart.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It wasn't original with Pastor Enyart. Other names for it are Bullingerism, after E.C. Bullinger, or hyperdispensationaliam. Bob did a doctoral treatise on it, which he and his organization have sold under the name, The Plot. It's worth the read, and probably worth the donation because they do a lot of good podcasts and other things, but I'm not sure if the content as a book is worth the price (no offense intended--I'm critical of theological books generally).

Idolater refuses to read it because he doesn't like that it isn't authoritative enough, on the level of his preferred catholic texts.

 

[Derf]

I'm familiar. Enyartists here however, do not identify as either Bullingerists or Hyper-Dispensationalists, and from my reading of them (and I could be wrong), they take those terms to be pejorative, and that's why they don't identify as either. 'Enyartism' is offered respectfully about them and their doctrine.



Thank you for introducing The Plot to the thread, as it is the formative if not foundational literary work of Enyartism, and also presents the blueprint of Enyartian methodology. This I infer, from engaging with directly and from reading TOL's many Enyartists over the years. I have not read the book.

=


Nick is an Enyartist and an Enyartian, he believes in Enyartism the system of doctrine, and uses the Enyartian method to read and interpret Scripture.

Sorry, I misremembered Bullinger's middle initial. It was "W", not "C". I'll make the correction.

 

[Derf]

Idolater refuses to read it because he doesn't like that it isn't authoritative enough, on the level of his preferred catholic texts.

Maybe so. He would benefit from reading The Plot.

 

[Right Divider]

Posts #1 and #2 in this thread are probably the dumbest things ever posted on TOL.

The "Enyartian method" is simply called LOGIC and SOUND REASON. That's why Bob became a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist.

Bob did not invent anything new. He simply let LOGIC and SOUND REASON inform his understanding of the Bible, which led Bob to the entirely logical position of MAD.

 

[Idolater]

Idolater refuses to read it

I just have 50-100 books in front of The Plot that I'd also like to read. I by no means have written off reading The Plot. I am curious to read it, I just haven't yet.

because he doesn't like that it isn't authoritative enough

The purpose of this thread is to steel man Enyartism. What you're referring to is back when I knew it as Mid-Acts Dispensationalism or Acts 9erism, and I was looking for a canonical or authoritative source. Now that it has dawned on me that we've really just been talking about Enyartism this whole time, things have become clearer. The Plot is by all accounts here on TOL the formative if not foundational and defining text of Enyartism.

, on the level of his preferred catholic texts.

I seek to steel man Enyartism.

 

[Idolater]

Speaking of The Plot, @Clete even just recently said here on TOL that he converted to Enyartism through reading it. But afaik @Nick M came to Enyartism independently through his own instictive Enyartian reading of the Scripture. afaik Saint @john w the great also arrived at Enyartism independent of Enyart. JR, RD, idk your conversion stories, but @VladtheDestroyer has said he too converted due to Enyart. There have been a great number of Enyartists on TOL over the years, @glorydaz, @steko, STP, @heir, the list is long. idk who converted because of Enyart, and who came to Enyartism independently. It's a very interesting story.

 

[Idolater]

Maybe so. He would benefit from reading The Plot.

As I said, I'm curious. I'm not an Enyartist, but I want to study it more, to steel man it, to be a better Enyartologist (and Enyartianologist, to study Enyart's Enyartian method of reading and interpreting Scripture). And like I also said, I think Enyart deserves to have his name on the system of doctrine. I think it is his.

I know there are others who believe something similar to Enyartism outside of TOL, if they're not just Enyartists themselves. Berean Bible Society and Grace Ambassadors (a Pastor Justin Johnson that RD has posted videos for) seem to fit the bill. But I think Enyart is their predecessor, and so deserves the honor.

And incidentally an Enyartist is not someone who follows Enyart the man, this is not any accusation of idolatry, but agrees with the system of doctrine that he generated, and the way he read the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

Posts #1 and #2 in this thread are probably the dumbest things ever posted on TOL.

It was just a very careful building out of all the vocabulary that the English language has available to talk about a system of doctrine, and a method, of reading and interpreting Scripture.

The "Enyartian method" is simply called LOGIC and SOUND REASON. That's why Bob became a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist.

Like I said this thread is in Enyart's honor. MAD wasn't a thing until he generated it as a system of doctrine, and he deserves credit for his accomplishment.

Besides RD, doesn't everybody believe they're being logical and reasonable? We still can distinguish between things that differ by assigning them appropriate names, and the appropriate name for MAD is Enyartism.

Bob did not invent anything new. He simply let LOGIC and SOUND REASON inform his understanding of the Bible, which let Bob to the entirely logical position of MAD.

Enyart did the work of developing Enyartism himself, he did not discover something anybody had already been believing, and he deserves credit for that.

 

[Right Divider]

I know there are others who believe something similar to Enyartism outside of TOL, if they're not just Enyartists themselves. Berean Bible Society and Grace Ambassadors (a Pastor Justin Johnson that RD has posted videos for) seem to fit the bill. But I think Enyart is their predecessor, and so deserves the honor.

Your stupidity is off the charts.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism is a BIBLICAL doctrine based on the BIBLE.

It was founded by God and is documented by the apostle Paul in the BIBLE.

It is simply the correct understanding of God's Word and not the man-made (with Satan's help) pile of rubbish called the RCC.

 

[Right Divider]

It was just a very careful building out of all the vocabulary that the English language has available to talk about a system of doctrine, and a method, of reading and interpreting Scripture.

Hogwash.

Like I said this thread is in Enyart's honor.

No, it is not. It is foolishness of the highest order and extreme degree from a brainwashed and blind fool.

MAD wasn't a thing until he generated it as a system of doctrine, and he deserves credit for his accomplishment.

MAD is a system of doctrine found in the Bible and acknowledged by the apostle Paul.

Besides RD, doesn't everybody believe they're being logical and reasonable?

It does not matter whether someone "believes that they're being logical and reasonable". What matters is whether someone can demonstrate such a thing.

We still can distinguish between things that differ by assigning them appropriate names, and the appropriate name for MAD is Enyartism.

No, it's not. Again, that is stupidity off the charts.

The appropriate name for MAD is Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

As wonderful as Bob was, he did not create MAD. MAD predates Bob and everyone else alive today.

Enyart did the work of developing Enyartism himself, he did not discover something anybody had already been believing, and he deserves credit for that.

Again, you demonstrate your gross ignorance and vast stupidity.

According to your line of "reasoning" there are 8.3 billion ISMS in the world.

 

[Derf]

It was just a very careful building out of all the vocabulary that the English language has available to talk about a system of doctrine, and a method, of reading and interpreting Scripture.



Like I said this thread is in Enyart's honor. MAD wasn't a thing until he generated it as a system of doctrine, and he deserves credit for his accomplishment.

Besides RD, doesn't everybody believe they're being logical and reasonable? We still can distinguish between things that differ by assigning them appropriate names, and the appropriate name for MAD is Enyartism.



Enyart did the work of developing Enyartism himself, he did not discover something anybody had already been believing, and he deserves credit for that.

naming a system after its supposed founder invites confusion. MAD is a reasonably descriptive name, and an appropriate acronym at the same time.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

@VladtheDestroyer has said he too converted due to Enyart.

Well I don't think "converted" is exactly the right word here. I suppose way back when I was a teen I would have been considered a covenantalist. But it's not like Covenant Theology is the stupidest thing in the world, it's just that over time I came to see dispensationalism as a better way of explaining what the core of Covenantalism wants to explain. And mid-Acts dispensationalism is the best way I have found to understand, well, mid-Acts. Go figure.

Dr. James Tour is apparently a covenant theologian. He has some great bible studies on his Youtube channel. And I really like them. But there are times when watching some of them I'll say "Oh man! If only he were an MADist, then he would understand this part a bit better!"

That's just how it is.

 

[Derf]

Misinformation at best... a bald-faced lie, more likely.

Bullinger was NOT... I repeat... NOT a Mid-Acts dispensationalist (as was Bob Enyart).

There is a HUGE difference between the utter confusion of the Acts 28 position which Bullinger held and the firmly Biblical Mid-Acts dispensationalism of Bob Enyart.

Here are the tenets of Bullingerism from Duck AI:

Summary Table of Tenets​

Tenet	Description
Church Origin	Church began at Acts 28.
Scriptural Authority	Only Paul's later writings are applicable.
Rejection of Sacraments	Water baptism is not a sacrament.
Distinction Between Churches	Differentiates between the Jewish Church and the current Church.
Divine Baptism	Refers to a spiritual baptism, not a physical one.

The only things different from MAD are WHEN the new church began, and which of Paul's letters apply to the church today. The rest is the same.

According to Wikipedia, Bullinger's early writings considered all of Paul's letters as applicable to the body of Christ, but he changed.

Early ultradispensationalism, such as that promoted by Sir Robert Anderson and E. W. Bullinger in his early years, emphasized a dispensational boundary line at Acts 28:28, but did not apply this boundary line to the Epistles of Paul, viewing them as a whole whether or not they were written before or after Acts 28:28. When the young Charles Welch pointed out the inherent contradiction in this to E. W. Bullinger, Bullinger changed his views, and incorporated the dividing line into his teachings on the Epistles of Paul that were written from that point forward and which became universally known as ultradispensationalism. Since the majority of his work was written before this point, however, many of his writings view Paul's Epistles as an unbroken whole. Later adherents of ultradispensationalism writers, such as Stuart Allen, Oscar Baker, and Otis Sellers, all followed the example of Charles Welch and E. W. Bullinger's later work in applying the division to Paul's books as well as the book of Acts in the true spirit of ultradispensationalism.

So Bullinger started out as half-mid-Acts, and half Acts 28. The general tenor of Mid-Acts is certainly Bullingeristic. Definitely not a "HUGE difference".

 

[Idolater]

Your stupidity is off the charts.

I've been using a sober register this whole thread, if not entirely serious or somber—sober.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism is a BIBLICAL doctrine based on the BIBLE.

It was founded by God and is documented by the apostle Paul in the BIBLE.

It is simply the correct understanding of God's Word and not the man-made (with Satan's help) pile of rubbish called the RCC.

Everybody believes that their system of doctrine is based on the Bible, and was founded by God and is documented by the Apostle Paul in the Bible, and is simply the correct understanding of God's Word and not the man-made pile of rubbish called [the precise reverse of their own system of doctrine].