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.