Thread: The Dialectic: Arguing Against the Doctrines of the New Testament
Admin
The Dialectic: Arguing Against the Doctrines of the New Testament
Posted : 19 Feb, 2013 11:11 AM
II Thessalonians 2: 3 says "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"
And Luke 13: 21 says "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."
The second beast described in Revelation 13:11-18 often called the False Prophet, but representing many False Prophets - caused many Christians to accept false doctrines, or other Gospels, especially starting in the 19th century. This is one cause of the falling away.
Then, in the late 1880's Westcott and Hort produced a Greek text based on texts associated with Alexandaria in Egypt - to replace the Textus Receptus and the English translations from it, the Tyndale, Geneva and King James Version. This can be seen as a second cause of the falling away. Two Greek texts that differ in many verse wordings as well as many English translations which have different verse wordings led to some confusion about what was the authentic and absolute word of God.
But there is a third major cause of the great falling away in our
timeline. And this one is harder to understand. It is something that
has been called the dialectic within political correctness, cultural Marxism or
transformational Marxism. It is a Marxism that is non-violent as
compared to classical violent Marxism. It starts from atheism, which,
as Marx said and Freud agreed, since there is no God, everything is
permitted. This Marxism, like its violent counterpart, makes use of
the dialectic of Hegel. But the use of the dialectic since about 1950
in the US has been perfected and during the later 20th century was
applied in almost all areas of life, not just in philosophical
discourse or in politics, but also in the churches and in everyday
conversations - and now on Internet forums.
Transformational Marxism and its use of the dialectic seeks to overthrow absolute truth and absolute morality, and replace both by dialogue to consensus within a facilitated process.
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."Proverbs 3:5-6
When man's understanding of the Word of God comes to be influenced by what is called humanism, from man's philosophy, then we are more likely to get forms of man-made theology. In part, man-made theology is what Christ warned about when he said "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matthew 16: 5
Now in 2013 many of those who claim to be Christians learn man made theology more than they learn scripture and they are more interested in theology than in learning the meanings behind the verbatim words of the Bible, often presented in metaphoric language. Learning man made theology is partly what Paul was talking about in II Timothy 3: 7. "...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Transformational Marxism is a form of humanism, but one which starts from atheism and one which has worked to overthrow the influence of Biblical Christianity and the family on American culture surrounding the churches and has infiltrated the seminaries, the leadership of the denominations and the churches themselves with its dialectic and teachings. This infiltration of American churches is more obvious in Rick Warren's Purpose Driven church, but it has happened also to some extent in other churches.
What is called the Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th centuries came out of the humanistic philosophies of guys such as John Locke (1632�1704), Isaac Newton (1643�1727), and especially Voltaire (1694�1778). This more general form of humanism came before Hegel (1770-1831) and Marx (1818-1883).
As a result of the influence of humanism on Christians and the cultural change as a shift in thinking away from a paradigm in which the Word of God is seen to be absolute truth, many Christians lost their love of the truth (II Thessalonians 2:10-12) and zeal to protect the faith and Gospel of Christ. So, the false prophets of the 19th century and the cults began to gain more and more Christian followers.
The Dialectic: Arguing Against the Doctrines of the New Testament
Posted : 19 Feb, 2013 01:42 PM
Some scriptures with arguements against New Testament Doctrines
"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Genesis 3" 1-7
The serpent got Eve to dialogue with him, which was her mistake. Eve said to the devil that God told them they must not eat of one particular tree in the Garden, though they were allowed to eat of the other trees. God as the patriarchal authority had told Adam he must not eat of this tree, or he would die. The same rule applied to Eve. By use of the dialectic within dialogue, Satan "fixed" Eve's obedience to the
patriarchal authority of God. Satan used the dialectic to oppose, and for Eve, to overthrow "it is written," which is the absolute truth from God.
"14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.
27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." Luke 11: 14-27
In Luke 11: 14-27 the account begins with Christ casting out a devil. The "thesis" here is Jesus Christ as fully God in man's flesh able to cast out demons and much more. He can, for example, walk on water, raise the dead and can do anything he wants to do. But a dialogue begins from those who witnessed this casting out of a devil.
"He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven." These statements sound like they came from the Pharisees. The text does not say this, but the main opposition to Christ and his actions and doctrines came from the Pharisees as the leaders of physical Israel at the time.
But Christ answers them and in this process teaches and preaches doctrines as part of his Gospel. If he, as God, casts out devils, then this means the kingdom of God had come to the people around him. This was part of their visitation, part of the changing and re-creation of physical Israel - which the Pharisees and most of physical Israel strongly rejected. And since they strongly rejected these changes Christ brought, they resorted to the dialectic.
Christ's mentioning of the overcoming of the strong man, who is Satan, and freeing his captives refers to Isaiah 61: 1, "to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound." Isaiah 42: 7 says much the same thing. Luke 4: 18 quotes Isaiah 61: 1 and 42: 7 in saying "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to
preach to the poor...to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, and to set at liberty them which are brused."
The Gospel of Christ is the good news that Christ as fully God has come to deliver us from the clutches of the strong man and to open our spiritual eyes to his truth. As such the Gospel cannot be reduced to his death and resurrection to save us from our sins. Paul in I Corinthians 15: 3-8 briefly states that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose from the dead, and was seen by many witnesses. But here Paul is just going over Christ's death and resurrection, not the whole Gospel of Christ. The question should be, what is not part of the Gospel of Christ in the New Testament? To teach that there is an essential "Gospel" which must be believed to be saved, but that there are doctrines in the New Testament which are not essential for salvation is to contradict II Thessalonians 2: 10-12, and this is a deadly false doctrine. See Luke 13: 25-27, "know ye not whence ye are," or where you have positioned yourself in your doctrines.
In talking to those around him who opposed his doctrines and actions, Christ was teaching about that which is spiritual, that is, his coming to proclaim freedom from bondage to Satan and to the false doctrines of physical Israel. But in Luke 11: 27 a woman in the group nearby offered a kind of "resolution" or "synthesis" to the conflict between Christ's demonstration of spiritual power, his doctrines and the opposing dialectic of the followers of the Pharisees. She said "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked," pulling the dialogue to that which is physical and out of the area of the spiritual.
In John 8: 32-42 Christ again engages in dialogue with the Pharisees.
"32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word."
Here Christ is teaching new doctrines to physical Israel. He told them that physical Israel as servants of God do not have everlasting life under his New Covenant, but Sons of God, like Christ, have everlasting life. Those of physical Israel had to become sons of God to have everlasting life. Christ also taught that the Son, meaning himself, could make those of physical Israel free of bondage to the strong man.
But the Pharisees as leaders of physical Israel strongly rejected Christ's doctrines and asserted in opposition to these new doctrines that they were Abraham's seed, meaning his physical seed, and were in bondage to no one. In their zeal to defend their position over physical Israel and the doctrine that they are the chosen people because of having the physical DNA from Abraham, they used a more nasty form of the dialectic in saying "We be not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God." Why did the Pharisees say they were not born of fornication? Who were they trying to insinuate was born of fornication?
The dialectic is used to assert and defend doctrines with which one has a relationship, and to oppose any truths of "it is written" which do not agree with the doctrines one holds and love.
When a relationship comes into conflict with an absolute truth, the dialectic may begin. It could also be absolute morality that a relationship comes into conflict with. The relationship is often with one's theology, his church, and one's own denomination, his or her own congregation, the minister, and friends within that congregation.
The dialectic as an argument then tries to compromise that absolute truth in some way - in order to preserve the relationship.
The Dialectic: Arguing Against the Doctrines of the New Testament
Posted : 20 Feb, 2013 05:15 AM
In Luke 11:14-27 the argument is against Christ himself, implying that he is not what he claims to be. "He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils." This statement is also said to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Matthew 12: 31 and in Mark 3:28-30.
Then in John 8:32-42, the Pharisees are arguing against the doctrines that Christ is teaching. "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" Christ answered by teaching doctrine, his absolute truth, "And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever." The Pharisees answered by repeating, "Abraham is our father," and Jesus answered again by teaching doctrine, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." They could not hear the doctrine that they as servants do not have everlasting life, and repeated their argument that they were the seed (physical seed) of Abraham.
The dialectic is argument against that which is absolute truth or absolute morality when it occurs in scripture. The dialectic as studied both in scripture and in the present world by Dean Gotcher is also argument against facts, and it almost always is a way of defending a relationship against those facts. Dean Gotcher is an expert on the dialectic.
The use of the dialectic is shown in almost verbatim records in the Bible of arguments by Satan and the Pharisees against the doctrines taught by Christ, his Apostles and others. There is a hint in Acts 6: 11 that Pharisee types tried to make arguments against the preaching of doctrine by Stephen, but in Acts 7 everything written by Luke is the teaching by Stephen, without any argument against his doctrines.
Since arguments against the doctrines taught by Christ and his Apostles are inspired by Satan, we can look for some statement in scripture which deals with this kind of argument. Revelation 13: 11, "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth: and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon."
Basically, the dialectic is an argument meant to compromise that which is taught as absolute truth in the Bible, and when you get a glimpse into how it operates, you can begin to see patterns and types of arguments that occur over and over in arguments against the doctrines of the New Testament. These dialectic arguments against New Testament doctrines occur in the time of Christ and in First Century and again in our own timeline. Just as the Pharisees argued dialectically against the doctrines given by Christ, so the modern day Pharisees and their followers argue against the same New Testament doctrines.
Dean Gotcher points out that in the use of the dialectic to defend a relationship, very often opinions and feelings motivate the dialogue. Our first love is to Christ and his doctrines (II Thessalonians 2:10-12) but when we allow love for something else as part of our relationship with that something else, then in our affection or feeling for that other thing, group, theology or person, we can fall into an attempt to compromise the doctrines of Christ to support our relationship and our feelings toward the object of that relationship.
The Dialectic: Arguing Against the Doctrines of the New Testament
Posted : 21 Feb, 2013 06:36 AM
Theodore W. Adorno posed as a personality-social psychologist and was the senior author of a very influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950 when he was on the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley. Adorno was one of the leaders of the Frankfurt School of Marxists who were driven out of Germany to the U.S. by the Nazi movement in the thirties. In his book, The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno claimed that fascism was caused by Christianity and the family, both with their
patriarchal structure. Using the dialectic in a broader way, Adorno opposed fascism to what he then called "democracy," which was really the stealth Marxism mixed with Freud of the Frankfurt School, and now blended with aspects of American personality-social psychology.
Adorno's work was one of the foundations of what later came to be known as political correctness, Cultural Marxism or Transformational Marxism. This was all initially developed in some of our major universities.
No one involved in any of the core movements of the counterculture - the drug and hippie movements - or of its allied movements like the New Left, feminism, the New Age Occult movement, self psychology, the sex lib, and the homosexual and lesbian movements ever realized that this "great rebellion" was not an accident of history. It was part of what Antonio Gramsci, the "non-violent" Marxist from Italy called "the long march through the institutions." The Long March sought to diminish and eventually destroy the influence of Biblical Christianity and the Father-Led Family on American and Western society. The March of Transformational Marxism also invaded the Christian seminaries and the denomination hierarchical structures of the churches.
The Group Dynamics movement in social psychology provided part of the intellectual framework for the encounter group movement of the sixties and seventies.
Group cohesiveness is an important concept in Group Dynamics. A small group has to be cohesive, that is, have common attitudes, beliefs, feelings and goals in order for the group to exert pressure upon targeted individuals to change their attitude positions and behavior. Kurt Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger, emphasized group cohesiveness as the tendency of individuals in a group to stick together. Festinger, and Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, said cohesiveness was �the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group." Group cohesiveness as a concept was used in the encounter group movement because only a cohesive group can exert an influence upon its individual members. The group facilitator worked to create cohesiveness and manipulated the group's attitudes and behavior by use of the dialectic, which he or she also used on targeted "deviant" individuals in the group. In general, the cohesive group was used by a facilitator to move individuals with absolute truths and absolute morality to compromise those absolutes in order to stay in their relationship to the cohesive group.
So, the social psychology of group cohesiveness was a necessary part of the encounter group process and of the development of the dialectic as an effective attitude change procedure.
Back in the sixties when Carl Rogers, William Coulson and a number of
other facilitators ran encounter groups involving the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California, they did not tell the
nuns that the patriarchal authority of God must be overthrown, that the Christian doctrine is fantasy, or that Roman Catholicism is false doctrine.
Rogers and his crew of facilitators told the nuns they could be themselves, and express their full potential and become
"self-actualized." They could become "fully functioning" people. Above all, they could express their feelings which Rogerian theory put above cognitive clarity or knowing. Rogers and his gang of facilitators ran encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic in groups which were relatively cohesive.
The result was that these allies of the Transformational Marxist Frankfurt School psychologists and psychiatrists destroyed the Immaculate Heart order. William Coulson in an interview sometimes called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 says "Within a year after
our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority, except the authority of their imperial inner selves."The interviewer asks "How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart order?
COULSON: It took about a year and a half." " Of the 615, how many are left?" COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the mother house in
Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood."
William Coulson's story of how Carl Rogers and a number of trained facilitators of encounter group procedures "destroyed" the Sacred Heart of Mary group in Southern California is an example of the power of the dialectic as developed within American social and clinical psychology by the mid sixties. When you have a group led by a trained facilitator of the dialectic where the group is deliberately led to avoid focusing upon facts as truth and absolute morality, and instead the group is led to focus more on feelings and opinions, then you have a "shifty" group. A "shifty" group is one in which more traditional reliance upon facts, or truths and on a fixed set of morals are given up and whatever satisfies man's feelings and opinions, which are derived from feelings, or emotions, take over.
God made man in the image of God, which means man was created to have three parts, body, mind and spirit (Genesis 1: 27). The humanism of Marx and of psychology knows only two parts of man, his body and his mind. Marxism, both in its classical form of Bolshevism - which went around killing those who would not accept it - and Transformational Marxism, not called Marxism, as well as psychology, coming out of Freud and psychoanalysis, and out of behaviorism, promotes only man's body and man's mind. So man under Marxism and psychology is spiritually dead. Christ said in Luke 9: 60, "Let the dead bury the dead." When a statement in scripture says something is not likely or not possible, then look for its metaphoric meaning. Christ was saying to let those who are spiritually dead, without a developed human spirit, bury the physically dead. In Matthew 15: 24 Christ said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The entire house of physical Israel was then spiritually dead; their human spirits had not been developed by the Holy Spirit. They were living in the flesh, that is, in their bodies and in their minds. The Pharisees bragged that they were the physical descendants of Abraham, but Christ said they did not follow Abraham spiritually.
A dialectic church acts a lot like an encounter group run by a Transformational Marxist facilitator. Rick Warren, for his Purpose Driven Church movement, has used small groups, like the more secular encounter groups under Carl Rogers and others. While many other churches do not use small groups under facilitators, the dialectic as used in dialogue is so widespread that many preachers and church people use it.
The deviant in the cohesive church group, a group in which almost everyone is following the same man-made theology, is one who always turns to the scripture for answers, and makes scripture his authority, rather than to the group which deals with opinions of the word of God and with how do you feel and what do you think. The "deviant," believer, whose authority is "it is written," and not man's theology and the opinions of the church group, is eventually "extruded" from the cohesive church group - unless he changes and conforms to the group. This cohesive church group that regards the believer as the deviant is based upon a broad way theology and not on a remnant of Israel view of "it is written." The broad way theology is found in Matthew 7: 13, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."
In scripture, for God, there is the Thesis and the Antithesis. God the Father and his authority over man is the Thesis. Man's flesh, his human nature, with his spirit not developed by the Holy Spirit, is the Antithesis.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 14.
The Antithesis can be man in the flesh as natural man making an argument against the doctrines of Christ in the New Testament, as seen in Luke 11: 15 and in John 8: 33,39
A facilitator - who can be a clinical psychologist running an encounter group, a leader of a large corporation, a politician holding an office, or a preacher in a church - by leading the group - face to face or not - away from facts and "it is written" to feelings and opinions by showing enthusiasm for feelings and man;s opinions of facts and discouraging statements about accurate knowing of facts or of "it is written." This moves the focus of the group away from a foundation of facts, accurate knowing and truths (or morality) to man's opinions.
Man's spirit is encouraged and developed by "it is written" and by a strong faith in the word of God given to us by the Holy Spirit, not by dialectic arguments against "it is written" and exalting opinions over facts.
So in a Christian seminary and in many churches more attention is paid to man made theologies and man's opinions of what scripture means than to scripture itself.
Through the use of the dialectic process man justifies his two part being, body and mind only, and negates his spirit. In dialoging about his opinions of facts or opinions of scripture, he affirms what Proverbs 3: 5 warns against. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart: and lean not unto thine own understanding." Dialectic man leans to his own understanding. When this process is fully developed, man lives in a world of abomination.
