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.
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, you've spent an extraordinary amount of time inventing terminology for a doctrinal system whose history you haven't even bothered to investigate.
Bob Enyart did not originate Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.
J. C. O'Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, and others were teaching and developing this understanding of Scripture decades before Bob wrote The Plot.
The Berean Bible Society was already publishing and teaching Pauline dispensational doctrine in the 1940s. Stam's Things That Differ predates The Plot by decades.
You wanted citations?
Sections: History of the Berean Bible Society The Berean Searchlight Pastor Cornelius R. StamFounder, 1940-1993 Pastor Paul M. SadlerPresident, 1987-2016 Pastor Kevin SadlerPresident, 2016-Current History of the Berean Bible Society The Berean Bible Society was founded over seventy-five years a
bereanbiblesociety.org
There is no more interesting study in all of the Bible than the study of the Book of Acts, generally called the Acts of the Apostles. While there is much that can be gleaned by even a superficial study of that Book, yet it is one of the most difficult portions of the inspired Word of God to understa
bereanbiblesociety.org
And let's go back even further.
Paul himself taught dispensationalism!
that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians 1:10&version=NKJV
if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians 3:2&version=NKJV
The Greek word is οἰκονομία (oikonomia), meaning stewardship, administration, or dispensation. It means, literally, "house rules." Israel's house rules are different than the house rules of the Body of Christ.
Paul also uses this word in Colossians 1:25, describing the stewardship God entrusted to him.
of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians 1:25&version=NKJV
The fundamental concept of dispensations is therefore not something Bob Enyart invented, nor something O'Hair or Stam invented. It is explicitly taught in Scripture.
Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is our understanding of how these scriptural distinctions fit together, particularly concerning the revelation of the mystery entrusted to Paul and the formation of the Body of Christ.
The modern theological terminology developed later, but the doctrine is grounded in what Paul actually taught.
So if you're determined to name the doctrine after the man who taught it, you've got the wrong man by approximately two thousand years!
Of course, Paul himself would have directed you to Scripture rather than to himself.
And that's precisely what we're doing.
Bob's contribution was his presentation, explanation, and defense of the doctrine, not its invention.
And this brings us to the more fundamental problem with your entire premise.
We do not believe Mid-Acts Dispensationalism because Bob Enyart taught it. We agree with Bob Enyart because we believe his teaching is consistent with Scripture.
That distinction matters.
You can learn something from a man without making that man the source or authority of the thing you learned.
Paul himself addressed precisely this sort of misplaced identification:
Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ. ” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 1:12-13&version=NKJV
Bob wasn't crucified for us either, nor did Bob claim to be the source of divine revelation.
Furthermore, agreeing with Bob concerning Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not entail agreeing with him about everything else he taught. His theological positions extended well beyond dispensationalism, and Mid-Acts believers are perfectly capable of disagreeing with him.
Your invented classification system obscures that distinction rather than clarifying it.
And appealing to RD for an explanation doesn't make RD an authority over my doctrine any more than learning from Bob makes Bob an authority over Scripture.
The standard is Scripture itself, interpreted consistently through logic and sound reason.
You claim that your purpose is to steelman our position, yet you've begun by assigning it an invented name, falsely attributing its origin to Bob, and constructing an elaborate taxonomy around that false premise...
All while admitting that you haven't even read the book you've declared foundational to the doctrine!
If you want to understand Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, study Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.
If you want to understand Bob Enyart's particular contributions to Christian theology, study Bob Enyart.
Those are related subjects, but they are not interchangeable.
And no amount of Enyartology, Enyartianology, Enyartianism, or whatever other terminology you invent is going to change that.
