Enyartism

[Idolater]

Hogwash.

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

This thread is in Enyart's honor. It's been nothing but respectful and honorable toward him, his memory, and theological legacy.

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

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

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

Sure. And who judges whether that's been done or not? Is the judgment objective and justified? How do we know? who judges that?

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.

I haven't found any evidence of Enyartism predating Enyart. Do you have citations?

Again, you demonstrate your gross ignorance and vast stupidity.

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

In a sense, sure. But there aren't 8.3 billion formative texts for the 8.3 billion ISMs like there is for Enyartism with The Plot, and 8.3 billion sizable subcultures who all believe in the same ISM like the subculture of the Enyartists.

 

[Right Divider]

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.

No... it's not. When the body of Christ began affects MANY other doctrines.

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

So what? We were not talking about what Bullinger "once believed". We were talking about the "Acts 28 position" what is associated with him.

So Bullinger started out as half-mid-Acts, and half Acts 28.

Who cares? That's irrelevant to the point. It's just another one of your many distractions.

The general tenor of Mid-Acts is certainly Bullingeristic.

No, it's not.

Definitely not a "HUGE difference".

Indeed, it's a HUGE difference that you don't really understand.

 

[Right Divider]

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

That certainly doesn't change how dumb it is.

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].

So what? Like I already told you... it doesn't matter what someone "believes about their system". It matters what they can support with logic and sound reason. You cannot support your system with logic and sound reason. Your system is nonsense.

 

[Right Divider]

This thread is in Enyart's honor. It's been nothing but respectful and honorable toward him, his memory, and theological legacy.

You don't honor someone by posting silly nonsense like you did.

Sure. And who judges whether that's been done or not? Is the judgment objective and justified? How do we know? who judges that?

We all judge it using LOGIC and SOUND REASON.

Your system does not hold up to that type of scrutiny.

I haven't found any evidence of Enyartism predating Enyart. Do you have citations?

Bob was a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist... you can find that in many places... including Paul's epistles.

In a sense, sure. But there aren't 8.3 billion formative texts for the 8.3 billion ISMs like there is for Enyartism with The Plot, and 8.3 billion sizable subcultures who all believe in the same ISM like the subculture of the Enyartists.

So everyone has to write a book? Writing a book starts a new ISM? You're amazingly dense.

 

[Derf]

No... it's not. When the body of Christ began effects MANY other doctrines.

"Affects" many other doctrines.

So what? We were not talking about what Bullinger "once believed". We were talking about the "Acts 28 position" what is associated with him.

Who cares? That's irrelevant to the point. It's just another one of your many distractions.

No, it's not.

Indeed, it's a HUGE difference that you don't really understand.

Would you like to explain the HUGE difference? I've stated, with evidence, that the two are very similar. You've stated, with bluster but no evidence, that they are not. Please be so kind as to elaborate.

 

[Right Divider]

"Affects" many other doctrines.

Thanks so much.

Would you like to explain the HUGE difference? I've stated, with evidence, that the two are very similar. You've stated, with bluster but no evidence, that they are not. Please be so kind as to elaborate.

No thanks... you can find that information on your own. You never listen anyway.

 

[Idolater]

That certainly doesn't change how dumb it is.

So what? Like I already told you... it doesn't matter what someone "believes about their system". It matters what they can support with logic and sound reason. You cannot support your system with logic and sound reason. Your system is nonsense.

What I'd like you to do¹ is supply some doctrines of Enyartism, or, some principles of Enyartian Scriptural interpretation (Enyartian hermeneutics). I saw just recently on TOL JR appeal to you, in order to answer a question about Enyartism, so I know you are not only an Enyartist and Enyartian but also an accomplished Enyartologist. You are an authority on Enyartism.

=

You don't honor someone by posting silly nonsense like you did.

We all judge it using LOGIC and SOUND REASON.

Your system does not hold up to that type of scrutiny.

Bob was a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist... you can find that in many places... including Paul's epistles.

So everyone has to write a book? Writing a book starts a new ISM? You're amazingly dense.

Writing a book might start a new ISM, for sure. As in the case of The Plot.


¹ The reason is because I want the Enyartic theological legacy steel man, so that we can know it as clearly and fully as possible. So many times on TOL we really don't ever engage with the other user's position, we straw man them, rather than steel man them, inadvertently. And when you straw man your interlocutor the discussion has already ended since you're not taking them and their position seriously, right from the get go.

 

[Right Divider]

What I'd like you to do¹ is supply some doctrines of Enyartism, or, some principles of Enyartian Scriptural interpretation (Enyartian hermeneutics). I saw just recently on TOL JR appeal to you, in order to answer a question about Enyartism, so I know you are not only an Enyartist and Enyartian but also an accomplished Enyartologist. You are an authority on Enyartism.

I'm pretty familiar with Bob's doctrine... it's called Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

You can find many resources online to help you understand it... even though you won't understand it... as you have not for years here on TOL.

 

[Derf]

Thanks so much.

No thanks... you can find that information on your own. You never listen anyway.

HUGE and you can't even tell me.

 

[Right Divider]

HUGE and you can't even tell me.

It's not that I cannot, I've just learned not to waste too much of my time on you.

 

[Derf]

It's not that I cannot, I've just learned not to waste too much of my time on you.

In other words, the gospel only goes to those who agree with you already. Of what benefit is that to anyone?

 

[Right Divider]

In other words, the gospel only goes to those who agree with you already. Of what benefit is that to anyone?

You say some of the dumbest things.

 

[Derf]

You say some of the dumbest things.

You can't even name one difference?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You can't even name one difference?

Derf, the difference is considerably more substantial than you seem to realize, which is probably why RD doesn't want to go over it again.

The two positions disagree about when the Body of Christ began and which of Paul's epistles are applicable to it. But those aren't two insignificant details. They are foundational distinctions with consequences for several doctrines.

Consider the following.

1. The identity of the Body of Christ.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 12:27&version=NKJV

This was written BEFORE Acts 28.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism recognizes the Corinthians as members of the same Body of Christ described in Ephesians.

The Acts 28 position must distinguish the church addressed in Corinthians from the Church revealed in Paul's prison epistles, because it maintains that the present Church did not yet exist.

That is not merely a disagreement about chronology. It is a disagreement about the identity of the Church itself.

2. The revelation of the mystery.

Consider Romans 16:25, where Paul speaks of the revelation of the mystery that had been kept secret since the world began.

Or 1 Corinthians 2:7, where Paul declares that he speaks the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom.

Both were written before Acts 28.

Mid-Acts recognizes that Paul was already preaching the mystery during his earlier ministry.

The Acts 28 position maintains that Paul's earlier ministry belonged to Israel's prophetic program and that the mystery concerning the present Church was revealed afterward.

This necessarily affects how one interprets Paul's apostleship, his gospel, and the nature of his ministry.

3. The Lord's Supper.

Paul instructs the Corinthians concerning the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Mid-Acts recognizes this instruction as applicable to the Body of Christ today.

The Acts 28 position generally rejects the Lord's Supper as an observance for the present Church because the instruction was given before the supposed dispensational boundary.

There's a direct difference in doctrine AND practice.

4. The relationship between Paul's earlier and later epistles.

Compare 1 Corinthians 12:13 with Ephesians 3:6.

In Corinthians, Paul teaches that Jews and Greeks are baptized by one Spirit into one body.

In Ephesians, he teaches that Gentiles are fellow heirs and members of the same body.

Mid-Acts recognizes these as complementary teachings concerning the same Church.

Acts 28 dispensationalism separates the two into distinct dispensational arrangements.

Again, this isn't merely a disagreement over when something happened. It changes how one understands what Paul was teaching.

And here's the fundamental problem with the Acts 28 position:

Before Acts 28, Paul was already preaching the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), identifying believers as members of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), and proclaiming the revelation of the mystery (Romans 16:25).

If those believers were members of the same Body described in Ephesians, what justifies placing its beginning at Acts 28? And if they weren't, then what Body was Paul talking about in Corinthians?

This isn't merely a disagreement about chronology. It changes who Paul was addressing, how his earlier and later epistles relate to one another, and which instructions apply directly to the Church today.

So, Derf, I've given you four substantive doctrinal differences. Which one would you like to discuss?

 

[JudgeRightly]

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?

History of the Berean Bible Society

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

The Program of the Book of Acts

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.

 

[Idolater]

I'm pretty familiar with Bob's doctrine... it's called Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

You can find many resources online to help you understand it... even though you won't understand it... as you have not for years here on TOL.

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?

History of the Berean Bible Society

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

The Program of the Book of Acts

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.

Based on both of yours input, I found this out:

Gemma 4 31B:
Bob Enyart represents a significant intersection between Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and Open Theism, serving as a bridge between the Mid-Acts hermeneutic and Open Theist ontology.

While the "founding fathers" like Cornelius R. Stam and J.C. O'Hair focused primarily on the dispensational divide, Enyart integrated these views into a broader worldview that challenged traditional notions of divine sovereignty and omniscience.

In Enyart's teaching, the two ideas complemented each other in the following ways:

1. Divine Flexibility and the Mid-Acts Shift
For Enyart, the transition in Acts 9 wasn't just a pre-planned mechanical switch; it was consistent with a God who is dynamic and responsive. If God is capable of initiating a "Mystery" (the Gospel of Grace) and directing it through a specific individual (Paul) to change the course of redemptive history, it is a short step to the Open Theist belief that God interacts with human free will in a way that allows the future to be open.

2. Anti-Calvinism
Mid-Acts teachers are typically staunchly opposed to the Calvinist view of unconditional election. Enyart took this further than most. He didn't just argue against election; he argued against the metaphysics that made election necessary. By adopting Open Theism, he provided a philosophical foundation for his "Grace" teaching: God offers salvation to all because the future is not a fixed script, and human response genuinely matters to God.

3. The "Dynamic" God
Enyart's approach to God "repenting" or "relenting" was much closer to the Open Theist position than the Augustinian/Aquinas/Calvin position. Where Calvin saw "divine baby-talk," Enyart saw a God who is genuinely affected by human behavior and who can change His course of action based on the faithfulness or rebellion of His people.

Bob Enyart is the "missing link." He moved the conversation from simply "Which gospel applies to us?" (the Mid-Acts question) to "What kind of God is the one who gives us this gospel?" (the Open Theism question). By doing so, he turned a technical debate about the Book of Acts into a broader argument about the nature of God's relationship with humanity.

 

[Right Divider]

Gemma 4 31B:
Bob Enyart represents a significant intersection between Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and Open Theism, serving as a bridge between the Mid-Acts hermeneutic and Open Theist ontology.

Your great confusion continues...

While the "founding fathers" like Cornelius R. Stam and J.C. O'Hair focused primarily on the dispensational divide, Enyart integrated these views into a broader worldview that challenged traditional notions of divine sovereignty and omniscience.

LOL

Eph 3:9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:9) And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:​

But some [men] will never see... because they believed the lie of Romanism.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Based on both of yours input, I found this out:

Gemma 4 31B:
Bob Enyart represents a significant intersection between Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and Open Theism, serving as a bridge between the Mid-Acts hermeneutic and Open Theist ontology.

While the "founding fathers" like Cornelius R. Stam and J.C. O'Hair focused primarily on the dispensational divide, Enyart integrated these views into a broader worldview that challenged traditional notions of divine sovereignty and omniscience.

In Enyart's teaching, the two ideas complemented each other in the following ways:

1. Divine Flexibility and the Mid-Acts Shift
For Enyart, the transition in Acts 9 wasn't just a pre-planned mechanical switch; it was consistent with a God who is dynamic and responsive. If God is capable of initiating a "Mystery" (the Gospel of Grace) and directing it through a specific individual (Paul) to change the course of redemptive history, it is a short step to the Open Theist belief that God interacts with human free will in a way that allows the future to be open.

2. Anti-Calvinism
Mid-Acts teachers are typically staunchly opposed to the Calvinist view of unconditional election. Enyart took this further than most. He didn't just argue against election; he argued against the metaphysics that made election necessary. By adopting Open Theism, he provided a philosophical foundation for his "Grace" teaching: God offers salvation to all because the future is not a fixed script, and human response genuinely matters to God.

3. The "Dynamic" God
Enyart's approach to God "repenting" or "relenting" was much closer to the Open Theist position than the Augustinian/Aquinas/Calvin position. Where Calvin saw "divine baby-talk," Enyart saw a God who is genuinely affected by human behavior and who can change His course of action based on the faithfulness or rebellion of His people.

Bob Enyart is the "missing link." He moved the conversation from simply "Which gospel applies to us?" (the Mid-Acts question) to "What kind of God is the one who gives us this gospel?" (the Open Theism question). By doing so, he turned a technical debate about the Book of Acts into a broader argument about the nature of God's relationship with humanity.

Well, congratulations. Your AI has caught up with what RD and I have been telling you. But you still haven't, it seems.

Bob Enyart was a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist AND an Open Theist.

Neither doctrine originated with him.

Open Theism has its own history, independent of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Richard Rice was publishing on the subject in 1980, and Clark Pinnock, Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger published The Openness of God in 1994.

Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

And neither doctrine requires the other.

One can recognize the dispensation of grace entrusted to Paul without accepting Open Theism, just as one can recognize that the future is open without accepting Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

Your AI has identified two theological positions that Bob held and then attempted to construct a causal relationship between them.

But that supposed connection doesn't even follow logically.

The fact that God revealed the mystery to Paul does not, in itself, establish whether future free choices are settled or open. Nor does the revelation of something previously kept secret mean that God only conceived of it when He revealed it.

Likewise, the offer of salvation to all does not depend upon whether God exhaustively foreknows future free choices.

You're conflating two distinct theological questions and calling their combination a new doctrinal system.

Furthermore, where is the evidence for this claim that Bob understood the transition in Acts 9 as something other than a pre-planned dispensational change because of his Open Theism?

Where does Bob actually make that argument?

You cannot simply attribute theological motivations to someone because an AI generated a plausible-sounding explanation.

And calling Bob the "missing link" doesn't establish anything either.

Bob taught Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Bob taught Open Theism. He also taught numerous other things.

That doesn't mean every doctrine he taught becomes a component of some newly invented system called "Enyartism."

If by "Enyartism" you simply mean the collection of theological positions Bob personally held, then you're describing Bob's theology, not identifying an independently established doctrinal system.

If you're claiming he developed a distinct theological system, then identify what actually distinguishes that system from Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and Open Theism, demonstrate how those distinctions are established in Bob's own teachings, and explain why they warrant an entirely new classification.

Simply identifying doctrines that Bob held simultaneously doesn't establish any of that.

And perhaps actually read The Plot before trying to explain what Bob supposedly taught in it.

An AI-generated summary is not a substitute for studying the source material.

You said you wanted to steelman our position.

Then start with what we actually believe and what Bob actually taught, rather than continuing to invent labels and asking an AI to fill in the blanks.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Cool link.

 

[Derf]

Derf, the difference is considerably more substantial than you seem to realize, which is probably why RD doesn't want to go over it again.

But that's the whole purpose of a teacher...to go over things multiple times so that those who don't understand can understand better, or so that those who disagree will have no excuse for their disagreement, assuming the teacher's doctrine is correct.

The two positions disagree about when the Body of Christ began and which of Paul's epistles are applicable to it. But those aren't two insignificant details. They are foundational distinctions with consequences for several doctrines.

Are they foundational distinctions, or do they emphasize inherent contradictions in the more incorrect system?

Consider the following.

1. The identity of the Body of Christ.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 12:27&version=NKJV

This was written BEFORE Acts 28.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalism recognizes the Corinthians as members of the same Body of Christ described in Ephesians.

The Acts 28 position must distinguish the church addressed in Corinthians from the Church revealed in Paul's prison epistles, because it maintains that the present Church did not yet exist.

That is not merely a disagreement about chronology. It is a disagreement about the identity of the Church itself.

Agreed. And mid-Acts is certainly more consistent than Acts 28. One wonders why Bullinger would have moved that direction (away from seeing Paul as consistent to seeing him change partway through).

2. The revelation of the mystery.

Consider Romans 16:25, where Paul speaks of the revelation of the mystery that had been kept secret since the world began.

Or 1 Corinthians 2:7, where Paul declares that he speaks the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom.

Both were written before Acts 28.

Mid-Acts recognizes that Paul was already preaching the mystery during his earlier ministry.

The Acts 28 position maintains that Paul's earlier ministry belonged to Israel's prophetic program and that the mystery concerning the present Church was revealed afterward.

This necessarily affects how one interprets Paul's apostleship, his gospel, and the nature of his ministry.

Is this not also a tenet of MAD? I.e., that Paul's earliest preaching was not informed by his later revelations from Christ?

3. The Lord's Supper.

Paul instructs the Corinthians concerning the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

Mid-Acts recognizes this instruction as applicable to the Body of Christ today.

The Acts 28 position generally rejects the Lord's Supper as an observance for the present Church because the instruction was given before the supposed dispensational boundary.

There's a direct difference in doctrine AND practice.

4. The relationship between Paul's earlier and later epistles.

Compare 1 Corinthians 12:13 with Ephesians 3:6.

In Corinthians, Paul teaches that Jews and Greeks are baptized by one Spirit into one body.

In Ephesians, he teaches that Gentiles are fellow heirs and members of the same body.

Mid-Acts recognizes these as complementary teachings concerning the same Church.

Acts 28 dispensationalism separates the two into distinct dispensational arrangements.

Again, this isn't merely a disagreement over when something happened. It changes how one understands what Paul was teaching.

And here's the fundamental problem with the Acts 28 position:

Before Acts 28, Paul was already preaching the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24), identifying believers as members of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), and proclaiming the revelation of the mystery (Romans 16:25).

If those believers were members of the same Body described in Ephesians, what justifies placing its beginning at Acts 28?

I think, though I could be wrong, that the justification is the same used by mid-Acts proponents: that Paul was going to the Jews until the Jews rejected his message. Such is seen in Acts 28, but in earlier passages as well.

And if they weren't, then what Body was Paul talking about in Corinthians?

I agree they (Acts 28ers) are inconsistent.

This isn't merely a disagreement about chronology. It changes who Paul was addressing, how his earlier and later epistles relate to one another, and which instructions apply directly to the Church today.

Which is important, of course, but you have the same (and legitimate) concern that I've been voicing. If you say all of Paul's writings define a new church, and Acts 28ers say only the latter portion define a new church, it seems like me:you and RD :: you and RD:Bullingerites. Which, if you can see it from my point of view for a moment, makes you more like Bullinger than you care to admit.

So, Derf, I've given you four substantive doctrinal differences. Which one would you like to discuss?

Don't you think all of them are because of a confused chronology, driven by the need to keep a systematic intact?