Which should tell you to stay away from them. Why would you desire to embrace something you admit the apostles never employed? Do you really believe such has increased knowledge today?
Why couldn't it? You've made a fairly big deal out of the book of Enoch. It was lost, and only rediscovered in the seventeenth century.
Thanks to sciences such as archaeology and paleography, we have knowledge of Enoch, and hence the Bible, that would otherwise no longer exist--we would have an awareness that Jude quoted "Enoch, the seventh from Adam," but no idea where he got that information.
It was believed until the 19th century that the New Testament was written in a Greek dialect dissimilar from any other. It was because of the discovery of Egyptian papyri containing everyday documents (letters, lists, receipts, etc.), that today we know koine Greek was the vernacular of the first century.
1 Samuel 13:21 in the KJV reads, "they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads." The word translated
file is "pim" in Hebrew. The translators had no clue what a pim was, so they took an educated guess that it was the implement used to sharpen the farm tools. It wasn't until the 20th century that archaeologists uncovered some polished pebbles with the word "pim" engraved on them, and realized it was a weight equal to 2/3 of a shekel. The verse doesn't describe how the Philistines sharpened tools; it describes what they charged the Israelites to do it: as the NKJV renders the same verse, "the charge for a sharpening was a pim for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads."
Certainly sounds to me like modern methodology has "increased knowledge today." Not necessarily in the sense that it's produced new knowledge that never existed, but in recovering lost knowledge that has increased our present understanding of the Scriptures.
Even more reason to ignore systematic theologies all together. There isn't a system that is 100 percent correct.
*shrug* If knowledge can be had, it can be written; if written, it can be organized; if organized, it can be systematized. What's the matter with that? If we can't do so with 100 percent accuracy, but we can attain, say, 95 percent accuracy, what's the matter with that? Half a loaf is better than none.
Just believe what God said.
And what is that, and what does it mean? As soon as you start trying to understand the meaning yourself, let alone teaching and explaining to others, you're doing theology. When you tell them, "We need to understand this as meaning such-and-such, because of what the Bible also says over here," then you're doing systematic theology. It's inescapable.
"The apostles didn't do it" isn't a particularly good rule to guide whether
we should do it, anyway.
By the way, What did Enoch preach?
No way of knowing, since the book of Enoch wasn't actually written by the biblical Enoch, anyway.