Who is Bob Enyart?

[Jefferson]

Regarding Nonismatism:

I've got a friend who has been practicing nonismatism since his teenage years. He's now 45. It's actually a very shallow, immature practice (at least for him). He grew up Catholic. So naturally, he became a protestant. Not because he saw a conflict between scripture and catholic practices but because he could say to his catholic family and friends, "Hey everybody, look at me! Look how much of a nonconformist individualist I am!."

But after during his time as a protestant he just couldn't tolerate conforming to a lot of the church's doctrines. For example, the little old ladies in the church believed in a literal Hell. They believed this (without questioning it) their entire lives and he believed the same thing! Horror of horrors! He was just like those conforming, unquestioning little old ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, this was just intolerable to his self image so he abandoned the doctrine of hell for something else. Again, not because he saw a conflict between scripture and the doctorine of hell but because he could display to the world how much of a nonconformist, individualist he was.

He is now considering abandoning Christianity altogether and is looking into Mormonism. (That is, until his new friends in the Mormon church begin seeing him as one of them - just another conformist).

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Regarding Nonismatism:

I've got a friend who has been practicing nonismatism since his teenage years. He's now 45. It's actually a very shallow, immature practice (at least for him). He grew up Catholic. So naturally, he became a protestant. Not because he saw a conflict between scripture and catholic practices but because he could say to his catholic family and friends, "Hey everybody, look at me! Look how much of a nonconformist individualist I am!."

But after during his time as a protestant he just couldn't tolerate conforming to a lot of the church's doctrines. For example, the little old ladies in the church believed in a literal Hell. They believed this (without questioning it) their entire lives and he believed the same thing! Horror of horrors! He was just like those conforming, unquestioning little old ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, this was just intolerable to his self image so he abandoned the doctrine of hell for something else. Again, not because he saw a conflict between scripture and the doctrine of hell but because he could display to the world how much of a nonconformist, individualist he was.

He is now considering abandoning Christianity altogether and is looking into Mormonism. (That is, until his new friends in the Mormon church begin seeing him as one of them - just another conformist).

This is interesting. I was listening to Bob's tapes on the book of John today and he was talking about how people who deny the deity of Jesus, also commonly deny the existence of hell, and how the two positions are related to one another.

It sounds like your friend has already abandoned the Christian faith, if indeed he was ever a believer in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Mateo
Clete offered:

This is of course a very noble undertaking. Instead of 'Nonismatism" one might have called it 'Bereanism'! But that would have defeated the point!


Mateo (smiling wryly):

Ah So glasshoppa... you perceive the paradox.


Actually I considered the Bereans as well but those that claim the name today are generally dispys and...well... you know what that means...

:kookoo:

:help:
You speak in riddles.
Do you reject the idea of dispensations or just of dispensationalism?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Mateo]

Jefferson posited:

:Regarding Nonismatism:

I've got a friend who has been practicing nonismatism since his teenage years. He's now 45. It's actually a very shallow, immature practice (at least for him). He grew up Catholic. So naturally, he became a protestant. Not because he saw a conflict between scripture and catholic practices but because he could say to his catholic family and friends, "Hey everybody, look at me! Look how much of a nonconformist individualist I am!."



Mateo suggests:

A careful rereading of the planks of Nonismatism will reveal that your young friend was attempting to embrace the schismatic variant of Nonismatism known to it's adhearants as "Anti-ismatism" which, unlike Nonismatism, seeks to reject anyone and anything, in totality, with which it is in disagreement on any particular point. To understand this theology better you might wish to converse with one or more of it's modern adhearants. The names Sozo and Hilston leap to mind....

 

[Mateo]

Cleate.

I've been giving your original post re: Nonismatism more thought and I think you may have happened upon something. Looking back on my lifelong pursuit of music I can see that I had approached it like I was the first one to do it and I was not going to let anyone tell me what I should and shouldn't like. Over the years I investigated all styles one by one and found certain aspects of them all that were apealing and wound up incorporating them into my aproach. Needless to say, purists in any one style were horrified when I brought certain aspects of other musical isms into my playing. Oh well...

As regards my pursuit of the word of God, looking back, I can see that I began to do the same thing with the Word. As my interest in it grew I began to amass a library worth tens of thousands of dollars. One day a man suggested to me that every book had a spirit and you only wanted one spirit in your house. It took me a year to hear him but I eventually did. Now I have a Bible and concordance and that's it. Say... this sounds like another possible plank of Nonismatism... "The Bible, The Spirit of Truth, a love of the Truth and naught else". The Nonismatist Holy Trinity.


Re: Dispensationalism,

The cliff notes are; back before I had sold my library to the local Baptist college I had studied the subject enough to come to the conclusion that Dispensationalism was a theology developed to explain and support the notion of a pretrib rapture which was sweeping America and parts of Europe at the time. I think the pubecent Margret McDonald's fever dream which gave birth to this notion is just that... a fever dream, born of Christianity's desire to avoid it's coming Gesthemane. Christ didn't and we won't either I suspect.

Yours in Him,

Mateo

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Mateo
Cleate.

I've been giving your original post re: Nonismatism more thought and I think you may have happened upon something. Looking back on my lifelong pursuit of music I can see that I had approached it like I was the first one to do it and I was not going to let anyone tell me what I should and shouldn't like. Over the years I investigated all styles one by one and found certain aspects of them all that were appealing and wound up incorporating them into my approach. Needless to say, purists in any one style were horrified when I brought certain aspects of other musical isms into my playing. Oh well...

As regards my pursuit of the word of God, looking back, I can see that I began to do the same thing with the Word.As my interest in it grew I began to amass a library worth tens of thousands of dollars. One day a man suggested to me that every book had a spirit and you only wanted one spirit in your house. It took me a year to hear him but I eventually did. Now I have a Bible and concordance and that's it. Say... this sounds like another possible plank of Nonismatism... "The Bible, The Spirit of Truth, a love of the Truth and naught else". The Nonismatist Holy Trinity.



Re: Dispensationalism,

The cliff notes are; back before I had sold my library to the local Baptist college I had studied the subject enough to come to the conclusion that Dispensationalism was a theology developed to explain and support the notion of a pretrib rapture which was sweeping America and parts of Europe at the time. I think the pubescent Margaret McDonald's fever dream which gave birth to this notion is just that... a fever dream, born of Christianity's desire to avoid it's coming Gethsemane. Christ didn't and we won't either I suspect.

Yours in Him,

Mateo

The idea of nonismatism has an appealing side to it, but if this is a good description of what you consider nonismatism then I must exclude myself from your ranks.
As I am sure you agree, truth is truth whether we appreciate it or not, whether we find it appealing or not and so I think your analogy to music breaks down rather quickly. Music appreciation can be and in fact is by definition, subjective. Truth on the other hand, and theology in particular, is not.
Further, you can not hope, in a single lifetime, to amass on your own all the collective truths that have been gleaned from scripture over the past 20 centuries. To have gotten rid of such a collection of amassed knowledge was a gigantic step in the wrong direction. There is simply nothing wrong with standing on the shoulders of giants in order to increase our understanding and wisdom. To think otherwise is prideful and foolish to such an extreme as can hardly be described.
Further still, books do not have spirits! I would agree that books contain ideas and that ideas have consequences but that is a far cry from saying that books can somehow spiritually infect your household because they are sitting on your shelf. In fact, if one does not read and familiarize himself with the ideas of others, including his enemies, then he is ill-equipped and unprepared to defend against all avenues of attack.

With regard to your comments on Dispensationalism, I would say that you came at it from the exact opposite direction that you should approach any field of study, especially theology. One should not come to a study of a broad system of theology from the perspective of one its details, but quite the reverse. One should first get a broad understanding of the system as a whole, then the details will fall into place on their own. This is a basic tenet upon which "The Plot" is based. Bob Enyart asserts that most Christians miss the forest for the trees. They focus on one issue and study it, then go on to the next issue, then the next. Bob suggest that one dispense with this never ending process, and instead get the big picture first(The Plot was originally to be entitled "The Big Picture"), then once you understand and can see the overview, the details become quite easy, almost intuitive in many cases.
I strongly urge you to begin again, building your library and to begin that process with a copy of The Plot
Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Paul requested his parchments (books) before he died. A good teacher will value the wisdom of others. Simplicity is a good thing, but it is superspiritual/?arrogant to devalue the works/wisdom of others. We need discernment, not destruction of evidence.

 

[Mateo]

Cleate and Godrulz,

I trust I'm not too wide of the mark when I observe that the two of you likely feel you have received no small benefit from reading extra-biblical books concerning the Bible and cannot imagine how such a thing could be in any way harmful. I understand this notion completely. I once was where you are now. I would encourage you to remember Jesus's admonishion to beware the leaven of the Pharasees... all it takes is a little leaven to leaven the whole lump.

I know it is tempting to read everything to familiarize yourself with all the notions and contraversies which revolve around the word of God to know which is and is not biblical but I would respectfully submit this has the tail wagging the dog. I would suggest that if you know the word of God inside and out you will know the minuite you hear something extra-biblical without being familiar with it.

It is one of the drawbacks of intellegence that the more we have of it the more we tend to lean on it. We then risk running afoul of the malady spoken of in God's word where one then becomes wise in their own eyes. Said another way, we become supremely confident that we can process reams of information without the least little speck of leaven making it past our spiritual spam filter thus necessitating going through the process which is set forth for us in the feast of unleavened bread, namely, reviewing our beliefs and picking out the extra-biblical junk. It is much easier to prevent this junk clogging your filter than it is to clean the filter once it gets plugged... said another way, how do you unleaven a loaf once it's leavened? It's tough.

One of the many reasons I abandoned extra-biblical books was that I realized I could read the Bible from now until they planted me and I would still be gleaning things I had not previously seen. That being the case every minuite I spent reading other books was time I could have spent reading the word of God. All other books are inferior to the word of God. It is worthy of our undivided attention. I mearly suggest to one and all that their time would be more profitably spent reading that word than any other literary pursuit they might endeavor in. It and it alone is leaven free.

Love,

Mateo

 

[godrulz]

I support the supremacy of the Word and believe we should read, study, meditate on, and obey it.

I read books/magazines about science, sports, etc.

It is not either Bible/or gooks, but both/and. Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers, was more effective in communicating with his culture, because he read many of the books they were reading. Youth evangelist Winkie Pratney is also effective and insightful because he knows the culture and studies historical Christian revivals.

Tools to understand Biblical culture and original languages will help us to understand the true meaning of Scripture (not every translation is 100% accurate). Just reading one English translation can lead to some errors (not on essential truth generally...although JWs find a way to twist Scripture on the Deity of Christ to their own destruction).

Where we should be careful of our stewardship of time is T.V. and internet use.

We should know and love the Word and be mighty in spirit, rather than mere intellects. This does not have to negate a limited reading of newspapers and books. Our trust is in the Word, not in the writings of man.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Mateo
One of the many reasons I abandoned extra-biblical books...

Did God give some the gift of teaching so that we could all practice ignoring them?

 

[Mateo]

GodRulz offered:

"Tools to understand Biblical culture and original languages will help us to understand the true meaning of Scripture (not every translation is 100% accurate). Just reading one English translation can lead to some errors (not on essential truth generally...although JWs find a way to twist Scripture on the Deity of Christ to their own destruction).

Where we should be careful of our stewardship of time is T.V. and internet use.

We should know and love the Word and be mighty in spirit, rather than mere intellects. This does not have to negate a limited reading of newspapers and books. Our trust is in the Word, not in the writings of man."


GodRulz:

I'm with you on the original language/translation issue. I did not mean to argue against this. What I did mean to suggest is that in studying the words and doctrines of men prior to or concurrent with studying the Word of God we invite contamination or leaven if you will. Paul spent three years in the desert prior to bracing others about his new faith. I think he exhibited some wisdom in this...

...and I don't own a TV.

:chuckle:

Mateo

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Did God give some the gift of teaching so that we could all practice ignoring them?

People in churches ignore the teachers they don't like all the time. Why should they be any different than the infidels? :chuckle:

 

[Mateo]

Jefferson enquired:

"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mateo
One of the many reasons I abandoned extra-biblical books...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did God give some the gift of teaching so that we could all practice ignoring them?"


Jefferson,

I would think the very act of me posting here would argue against the idea that I embrace this notion. Besides the concerns that I have already listed I would offer two more. It is our nature that we tend to hear that which we wish to and ignore that which we don't. In addition we are warned by many a Prophet and Apostle that as the return of Jesus approaches we would find little love of the truth and most gathering teachers to themselves that would lead them astray.

If you would accept for the moment the hypothetical that the Lord's return is not too far off then it would seem prudent for any and all who aspire to Christ to redouble their efforts to maintain purity in study, doctrine and living. If you find yourself agreeing with very many people regarding doctrine odds are you would do well to question said doctrine.

I have a little rule of thumb I find useful regarding doctrine; if a doctrine is expressed with a word that is not in the Bible odds are said doctrine isn't either.

Yours in Him,

Mateo

 

[godrulz]

millennium
incarnation/kenosis
virgin birth
second coming
Deity of Christ
personality of the Holy Spirit
Trinity
immutability (in some ways)
co-essential
communication
omniscience, omnipresence

etc.

are descriptive words that convey truths/principles that are found in the Bible.

The 'rule of thumb' is weak. The Bible is not a systematic theology text, so the formulation of theological doctrine may require technical terms for understanding and communication.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Mateo
I have a little rule of thumb I find useful regarding doctrine; if a doctrine is expressed with a word that is not in the Bible odds are said doctrine isn't either.

Godrulz made an excellent point on this already. I would add to it by pointing out that your "rule of thumb" is, in effect, a statement of theology itself. In fact, it is 'sola scriptura' taken to it furthest extreme. The problem is that neither sola scriptura nor your rule of thumb are stated in the scripture, and are therefore self defeating.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Mateo]

GodRulz suggested:

"millennium
incarnation/kenosis
virgin birth
second coming
Deity of Christ
personality of the Holy Spirit
Trinity
immutability (in some ways)
co-essential
communication
omniscience, omnipresence

etc.

are descriptive words that convey truths/principles that are found in the Bible.

The 'rule of thumb' is weak. The Bible is not a systematic theology text, so the formulation of theological doctrine may require technical terms for understanding and communication."


GodRulz,

Your list is a wonderful example of what I was suggesting with my little rule. Rather than address each word and create a Polycarpian novel let's just take one. How about the one almost know one would argue with? How about "the second coming"?

If we can agree that this term is generally used to refer to the return of Jesus when He returns to inaugurate His 1000 year reign then it takes all of about 5 minuites to verify that He has already ascended into heaven and returned once prior to the angels indicating to those who witnessed His second assention that they would see Him return in like manner, thus making His next appearance His third. Then, if you are a pretrib "rapture" adhearant (which I am not, notice the man coined term again) His final return to set up His kingdom would be His fourth.

I hope this example suffices to illustrate the confusion and consternation experienced by those of us who see such phrases without the "benefit" of an ismatic introduction to the Bible.

:think:

Love,

Mateo

 

[Mateo]

Cleate offered:

"Godrulz made an excellent point on this already. I would add to it by pointing out that your "rule of thumb" is, in effect, a statement of theology itself. In fact, it is 'sola scriptura' taken to it furthest extreme. The problem is that neither sola scriptura nor your rule of thumb are stated in the scripture, and are therefore self defeating.

Resting in Him,
Clete"


Sir Cleate,

You have me at something of a disadvantage here in that I am unfamiliar with the term "sola scriptura" nor the doctrine it likely represents and so have no way of responding in any useful way.

BTW, congrats on the latest addition to your family. At this point you must surely be considering at least a dog or something with a "Y" chromosome to comiserate with from time to time, no?

:chuckle:

Mateo

 

[godrulz]

Mateo: Interesting point on second coming...it is a bit technically semantical...we understand the First Coming as the incarnation and the Second Coming as an extended rule and visible return. The ascension was contiguous with his earthly life and resurrection. It is nitpicking to call it a major eschatological 'coming' (this 'return' involved a tiny interval and was not prophetically significant). We would then have to count the O.T. theophanies (appearances of the preincarnate Christ) as 'comings'. Is the Greek word not 'parousia'? The theological phrase 'second coming' has a specific definition and reference to a future event to facilitate communication. You are imposing (subjectively) additional 'comings' which are understood to not be in the same category as the major 1st/2nd Coming. If there is a pre-trib. rapture, it has been referred to as a phase of the Second Coming. Phase 1: Christ comes FOR his church. Phase 2: Christ comes WITH his church. This is not explicit (the Bible is not a systematic theology text), but is a doctrinal formulation trying to reconcile all the relevant passages in a chronological way.

Remember that the early church had a rudimentary understanding of the triune God. Due to later heresies, it was formulated (creeds) as a formal doctrine to reconcile all the Scripture passages. A label 'Trinity' was attached. This does not preclude the teaching in Scripture (predating the word/belief), nor is it necessary to call it that and believe the concept (one God with 3 eternal, personal distinctions). The early church experienced the triune God without systematizing their understanding. They worshipped the Father and Jesus and had the verses as a foundation for a later expanded understanding.

(JWs use this feeble argument to dismiss the Trinity: "The word is not found in the Bible, so it is not true". Yet they readily believe in paradise earth, millennium, governing body, disfellowshipping, etc. without the words being found in the Bible?!)

It is not a sound hermeneutical (interpretation) principle to say a concept must be given an English label in the Bible to validate the truth or principle found therein.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Mateo
Sir Cleate,

You have me at something of a disadvantage here in that I am unfamiliar with the term "sola scriptura" nor the doctrine it likely represents and so have no way of responding in any useful way.

Sola Scriptura simply means "only scripture". It is the formal "theological" name given to the position you're attempting to defend.
Here's an article I found presenting a very good argument against sola scriptura.
THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
The author of this article seems to draw the conclusion that since the Reformation spawned sola scriptura, and sola scriptura isn't right, then the Reformation wasn't right either. I obviously disagree with this, so please don't take my endorsement of this argument against one issue to be an endorsement of anything else.

BTW, congrats on the latest addition to your family. At this point you must surely be considering at least a dog or something with a "Y" chromosome to commiserate with from time to time, no?

:chuckle:

Mateo

Thanks!
Yes, I would like a little more testosterone around here! Girls can sometimes drive you a little nuts! :kookoo:


Resting in Him,
Clete


P.S. My name has no 'a' in it!

 

[Mateo]

Beloved GodRulz,

In the words of the Bard, "Methinks thou doth protest to much". All isms argue for the antiquity of their doctrine. They all insist that said doctrines are derived through inference as well. In addition they all seek to reconcile passages which would appear at first blush to be contradictory. I would suggest that any and all would be better served by a patient study of the word of God. In time these appearant contradictions resolve themselves without the help of, and often inspite of, "systematic theology". However, I do not insist that you swallow something you have no taste for... I simply question your tastes.