godrulz – I do NOT think Hilston’s review is objective nor accurate. After reading his opening statement, I disagree with Hilston where he said.
After close examination of this book, I am convinced that Enyart has many correct doctrinal concepts, but is missing the theological foundation upon which these doctrines are built, which inevitably results in doctrinal error elsewhere. The Plot is an example of how it is possible to have some pieces of the pie in place, and to have very little, if any, supporting piepan underneath.
And that was AFTER saying
The Plot, a 324-page document by Bob Enyart, presents a well-packaged, detailed, and informative treatment of various mid-Acts doctrines. However, the book is not a thoroughly academic or scholarly endeavor, nor does it appear to be the author's intent. While much of what the author writes aligns closely with what I view as a biblical mid-Acts position, the demonstrable theological underpinnings upon which these doctrines necessarily stand are conspicuously absent.
The Plot is a teaching about what the entire bible teaches! The bible is the basis for the teaching of the Plot. I am an Acts 9er, and if the theological support for that view is not presented in the Plot, I don’t know where it is. Bod’s style of presentation is markedly different, because as Jefferson pointed out, he utilizes a tactic of obscuring the mainline theological treatment so as to remain interesting and biblical without engendering the common, oh, he’s an eternally secure OSAS guy, where one’s presuppositions form drastic and often unfavorable reactions that you might not get if you can teach the teaching in more subtle ways.
I’m convinced that if Jesus Christ came to earth in this day and age disguised as an everyday bible teacher, He could hardly maintain a job, and most would consider Him a despicable “fringe toward heresy” lunatic. The truth is necessarily offensive, especially if it tells you that you are in the wrong. And most people, like say 98% have such a frail sense of objectivity toward the most important things in the Christian’s life, that most any exposure to their error, is met with great resistance and even bitter personal opposition. So there is great wisdom in presenting a teaching from the side door, if you will. If you don’t, over 90% of the time, most folks will dismiss the author or teaching out of hand because of some errant presupposition and petty prejudice.
It almost amazes me at Hilston’s inability to understand this about Bob’s approach, almost, but since I understand Hilston’s critical judgments, it’s not really very hard to figure out. Take his TV and talk show for example. He talks about the issues of the day, something that everyone chats about at work or play, but not the common biblical theological preaching approach. People are very quick to say, I’ll talk about anything but politics and religion, especially after the Christian conservative suggests something against his sensibilities. But the same nay say’er will discuss any number of moral and social current events, if their audience is docile and accepting of their views. People are vain and hypocritical, yet Bob loves them enough to try to reach them. Being salt and light in a world that hates and opposes God presents many challenges, and I think that Bob has a solid grasp of what it takes to avoid some of the most common barriers to entry.
Although I knew for some time that
Jefferson does not fully agree with Bob Enyart’s teaching, I had no idea he would think that Hilston’s critique is objective and accurate, it is NOT a fair critique, the opening statements show a serious lack of understanding even prior to examining his particular comments.
Hilston said
1. Further suggested reading: The only item the author lists under this heading is the Bible. While I appreciate the point he appears to be making (i.e., we only need the scriptures), Enyart himself has used myriad sources that he cites throughout his book. Surely, if he has benefitted from extra-biblical sources, why shouldn't others as well?
This is another example of his prejudice against The Plot, and further show’s his disregard for Bob’s attempt at reaching a wider audience, such as the world at large. His point was exactly as he stated, that God’s word is supreme and all other works need to conform to it. And as for the other references that are included throughout the book, people can benefit from and get them throughout the book! Like Jefferson said, Bob purposefully does not have a scripture index, nor a topical index in the back of his book, precisely because that is the first place most people go to weed out the undesirable element. Same basic issue with the reference materials, he used such and such about that?! No way, how stupid. etc. etc. etc.
It’s pretty much like what godrulz has already done, but it is rare to find the sole who will allow his presuppositions to be held at bay until after reviewing the whole story. I can only hope he will give it an objective review.
Hilston concludes saying
However, as it has been abundantly demonstrated, the most fundamental undergirdings of mid-Acts theology are conspicuously absent, including:
1. The administrative hierarchy of God's elect
2. The role of angels
3. The Seven Ones of the Body versus Israel Many
4. The place of ceremonial rites for Israel, and their prohibition for the Body
5. The significance of Body non-ceremonialism
6. The depravity of man
7. The sovereign decrees of God
8. The choosing of the members of the Body before creation
1 and 2 seem a cross between superfluous and strange to the biblical foundation of mid Acts theology, while 3 seems somewhat plausible, but not as though Bob neglected much of what that idea represents. 4, 5 and 7 are well represented in “The Plot” even though perhaps not in full agreement to all of Hilston’s conclusions, while 6 and 8 are in opposition to what Bob (and the bible) teaches.
In summary, Hilston is really disagreeing with Bob based upon his own theological differences and presuppositions. Plainly, Hilston agrees with Mid Acts, since that is his view also, but disagrees with the openness of God so this reaction is purely predictable. If you present a creationism argument to an evolutionist, because it does not fit his mindset for how things really are, the argument may seem compelling to some, but to those enlightened by progressive thinking, evolution renders creationism quite futile and useless. The amount of contradictory presuppositions often becomes so counter productive that genuine objective discourse between two such wildly opposing world views becomes almost impossible.
This new paradigm can NOT be accurately critiqued until one can demonstrate the ability to represent the view without doing injustice to it. When the so called objective reviewer considers what you teach as being a cross between heresy and perhaps blasphemy and certainly harshly condemnable false teaching, it becomes easier to see why such a review is prone to an especially thick and unfair prejudice. I warrant, without even knowing for certain (say 98% certain), that Hilston hated what Bob teaches well before reading The Plot. Once again showing that many well-intentioned and intelligent people hold their presuppositions too tightly.
Given 2 separate reviews, all else the same, when one CAN represent the view without doing violence to it, that review stands a much better chance of being objective. Actually, doing violence while attempting to faithfully represent a teaching eliminates an objective review. That is not saying that Hilston has done violence in his review, I am saying that he has done so on occasion with me about the same teachings.
Consider the following post in review of The Plot that is admittedly not specific to it's many teachings, but highlights the general idea and benefit of the work. And I do no violence in representing what it teaches. Please respond to the points given in favor to that work, don't they seem noteworthy and profitable and in accordance to what the bible teaches about itself?
