In the last post, I discussed how the foundation of occult mysticism centers on taking objective truth (of scripture) and rational thought and replacing it with subjective truth (relativism) and the elevation of subjective personal experiences (or feelings; perceptions). I noted that once you see that this is true, it’s hard to miss it when it happens. So when Radix Fidem’s John the Fool commented over at Sigma Frame, he was rightly reprimanded by Oscar (emphasis added):
Oh boy. Here we go. Again.
Oh yeah. Let’s rely on what everyone subjectively believes the Holy Spirit is telling them with no objective standard by which to judge what everyone subjectively believes. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, it’s not as if anyone’s ever tried that before. Right?
Oscar knows the signs and rightly called them out. Once you see it, it’s hard to miss.
Sigma Frame has changed. The site is now branded under the Radix Fidem banner. This caused the old links to other blogs to be removed, and the mystics now dominate. The blog, which was once nominally non-sectarian Christian, now officially embraces and promotes a false Christianity. Sigma Frame has fallen.
Back when I wrote “Is the Sigma Frame Blog in Decline?,” mostly a statistical examination with some speculation, I in no way predicted this turn of events, except for one part in particular:
I didn’t expect it to literally become part of a cult, but I guess you can’t keep playing with fire without eventually getting burnt. I suspect Oscar will stick around for a bit trying to fight the good fight, but the battle has been lost. Most of those who might have resisted this are gone. It’s the new normal, as they say.
If you are unclear why this has occurred, here is a good explanation:
Rarely does something so small explain so much. In this post, we’ll see why this seemingly innocuous statement reveals and explains the entire turn of events.
The Fall of Man
First, consider this proposition:
Now, consider this proposition:
This is known as a logical contradiction. Both propositions could not be true.
Eve knew what God had said. She had the truth, but exchanged it for the contradiction, for the lie. Why?
The very first sin of mankind was to embrace a logical contradiction to the received Word of God. A contradiction is a lie, thus the very first lie was a logical contradiction. Moreover, it was a rejection of absolute truth by abandoning the application of the mind. It was a rejection of the proposition that God himself had given in his own Word.
Eve had needed no mystical experience to do the right thing. She had in her mind all that she required. By contrast, it was a mystical communion with a false spirit animal—with Satan in the form of a serpent—that guided her to reject the Word of God.
Eve did not merely embrace a logical contradiction, she rejected the absolute truth of God—for the subjective truth of Satan—in order to do it: “Has God really said?” As we’ll see below, a rejection of logic always leads to relativism.
Positivistic
Now let’s go back to what Jack said. Did you catch the error that he made? I’ll repeat the snippet here:
Jack’s statement is self-refuting. The statement is a proposition that can only be understood (or true!) by accepting the validity of propositional logic. In rejecting propositional logic, Jack undermines his own argument. How? By logical contradiction.
Take the time to appreciate that the “Christian” mystic here is encouraging you to do the same thing that Eve did: embrace a logical contradiction, a lie in point of fact. It is no wonder, then, that the doctrines of mystics will require continually revisiting this theme: “Has God really said?”
But that is not the only error that Jack has made. I’ll let Bruce Charlton, one of the “mystics” on Jack’s list, explain:
Did you catch that? Sigma Frame is so steeped in Positivism that it “impairs any deep critical engagement with the metaphysical assumptions of positivism.”
The error Jack made is found in the simple observation that Positivism and propositional logic are not equivalent, nor even the same category. Their differences lie in the metaphysical assumptions, of which Jack is impaired from offering “any deep critical engagement.”
I’m going to keep citing Charlton, because Jack claims that he will seriously consider the feedback of those on his shortlist. Hopefully Jack will recognize his errors through Charlton’s analysis, as Jack is not open to my own analysis. So let’s let Charlton describe what Positivism is, to see how it applies:
To be more exact – Positivism is itself a metaphysical assumption – and that assumption is as above. This despite that Positivism explicitly denies the meaningfulness and/or validity of metaphysics. In sum, that denial of metaphysics and its ‘replacement’ by science/ logic/ mathematics, is itself precisely a metaphysical (not scientific, not logical, not mathematical) assumption. On this clear and deadly contradiction is built modernity.
Positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (and ultimately of God). But notice what Charlton says: “On this clear and deadly contradiction.” The problem with positivism is that it is a logical contradiction, a lie. It is self-refuting, a trait it shares with Jack’s statement above.
The implication is simple. If one rejects the positivist metaphysical assumptions—and I do—then there is nothing inherently problematic with the application of propositional logic. Indeed, as Charlton notes, it is the application of logic that ultimately leads us to reject Positivism. Without logic, and the Law of Noncontradiction in particular, we would not be able to identify falsehood from truth.
Let’s cite Charlton again:
Propositional logic is not inherently positivist. Indeed, it is right and good that true knowledge that comes from revelation or the imagination conforms to logic. Even though the origin of truth is not logic itself, that does not invalidate its use. It is a tool given to us by the Creator God—as to Eve before the Fall—a tool that is evident in the makeup of God’s creation itself (for there is no reason that nature should be rationally intelligible except for God himself).
Positivism is the metaphysical assumption that truth can only be derived from the five senses that makes something positivist. Logic is in no way bound to the physical senses. Consequently, Jack’s statement equating the two is simply false.
The Senses
Now let’s look at the second part of Jack’s statement:
For those unfamiliar with the term, this is what sentient means:
(2) Aware
(3) Finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Calling truth—an abstract concept—”sentient” is poor grammar. People are sentient, truth is not. But we can set aside this misuse of the English language, as it’s still clear enough what is meant figuratively.
According to the first definition, truth is capable of being sensed or felt from the sensations of the five senses. According to the second definition, truth is something one is made (or becomes) aware of. According to the third, truth is found in one’s perceptions or feelings.
Recall now what I wrote in my previous post:
It is difficult to miss how Jack’s argument fits this mold.
Looking at those definitions, if one must use the five senses to determine truth, then that’s clearly positivist. Faced with the choice of using one’s mind versus using one’s senses and feelings, it is curious that Jack chose a word that implies the latter!
I suspect most sensible readers would conclude that Jack was making a positivist statement. The thing is, Jack said that these feelings, perceptions, and awareness are mystical. So I think we need to read past what he actually said and presume what he probably meant. He meant that awareness of truth is sensed or felt using non-physical, spiritual sense(s). He does not tell you what that means.
Ultimately, we don’t need to know what he means in order to invalidate his claim. Whether or not one perceives using the five senses or through some non-physical spiritual sense, none of that precludes the use of the mind, nor of logic in particular. Eve was not precluded from using it before the Fall—before there was a fallen “fleshly nature”—and neither are you after the Fall. Indeed, scripture makes it completely clear that it is our obligation to do so.
Relativism
No matter how you look at it, Jack’s flat rejection of propositional logic and replacement with mysticism does not work.
Positivism necessarily includes the rejection of absolute truth, for God’s truth—all of it—is absolute. To know God truly is to know truth absolutely. This is why scripture—the primary way God has chosen to speak to us—gives direct access to truth (and prayer direct access to God).
The means God chose to communicate with us has always been by words. Eve was given verbal instructions. The angels gave their messages in words. The prophets delivered verbal messages from God. The Law of God was written down. None of the patriarchs of scripture were given impressions, they were told using words. And, just as our communication from God is in words, so too is the mode in which we will be judged by our words:
By contrast, occult mysticism is characterized by a rejection of absolute truth in favor of relativism, because it relies on selective personal experience (feelings and perceptions) over anything and everything universal and written. Indeed, what is written is typically treated as insufficient, requiring supposed further fuller experiences that go beyond words.
In Positivism, there is no acknowledgment of a higher source of truth beyond what one can sense. This may surprise you, but mysticism is no different: ultimate truth is only found in the experiences one perceives. Sure, mysticism purported to (intellectually) accept a higher power and to (intellectually) assert the presence of senses other than the standard five, but its epistemology is categorically identical. Both rely on internal personal experiences—or collectives of personal experiences—to explain external phenomenon.
If the primary difference between Positivism and mysticism is that the former involves five senses and the latter involves a sixth sense, this counting difference isn’t really a critical metaphysical distinction. The false metaphysical assumption that “if it is spiritual and real, it must be from God” may also explain the illusory differences.
Radix Fidem, Sigma Frame’s cult, teaches that the mind is fallen and the heart is redeemed. This duality of mankind is not biblical. Indeed, the Bible teaches that the heart and mind are a unified part one’s being, not separated at all. We will talk about this more at the end of the week here. For now, consider how Eve’s mind, for example, was not separate from her heart, and she used her entire being to reject God and eat the fruit.
Charlton notes that revelation and imagination are, rather obviously, not of the five senses. But they are experiences, sensed, felt, perceived, and processed in one’s being. Whether you call this the heart or the mind makes no practical difference. It is internal rather than external, but it is still experiential, and thus subjective.
Whether a Positivist or a Mystic, the end result is the same: a rejection of absolute truth via the Word of God, and the embrace of subjectivity, of relativism.
Though the mystic makes claims to God’s existence and his ability to find God’s truth, his fruit demonstrates the lie. By his words he demonstrates relativism, that is, a rejection of the very God he claims to believe. His words and his deeds are a contradiction. This leaves him no better off than—indeed, equivalent to—the Positivist.
On Monday we showed how occult mysticism has penetrated one small online virtual Christian community. Today we saw how it corrupted one Red Pill Manosphere blog. But these are just small fish. In the next two posts (on Wednesday here and Thursday here), we will see how this occult mysticism has penetrated to the heart of mainstream American Christianity. Then on Friday (here) we will revisit Radix Fidem’s—and Sigma Frame’s—unbiblical division of the heart and mind and the discover the reasons for the attacks on using your mind.
What obviously happened was Jack got a little success with Scott in 2020 & a megaton with first NOVA in December ’20 and then MOSES, JESUS, and GBFM joining up with their old friend NOVAseeker in early 2021 that the following Scripture then applied to ”Jack”:
1 Timothy 3:6
King James Version
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
That fully culminated on September 20, 2021 (after MOSES, JESUS & GBFM had left over a month and a half earlier) with jacks infamous gay porn swinger Mike Davis post, ”Lessons on Life and Marriage from Mathew 10:plus lots of gay porn butthexting Empowerment thanks to ”jack!”” IOW?
Jack who was so concerned about rules months earlier, NEVER put any on himself about pride, lust, and as seen by his most infamous post title, butthext.
“Women should not be leading, it is a sign of God’s judgment”
Well how about being led by divorcees, novices, or people who are really into sexually suggestive public writings and illustrating photos?
Are these not also signs of God’s judgment?
—————————————————————
Going back to the 2019 Sigma Frame Performance Report, maybe we should have noticed the shift to focus more on personal experiences and anecdotes:
“In 2019, I took a slightly different approach towards writing than I have in the past. I used to write in themes, using topics and citations from other articles. I still do that, but this year, I started introducing more epiphanies from my private journal and my life experiences.”
If we were wondering why Jack has been lecturing me about the length of my comments and posts, we should have realized that this would occur since the 2020 Sigma Frame Performance Report:
“I decided to experiment with writing shorter, more frequent posts, and I made a goal of posting three times a week at the same time. [..] In November, I started posting every day. [..] As a result of the change from posting three times a week, to posting every day, the traffic went up 28.5%. [..] As the following statistics will show, all these changes proved to increase readership dramatically.”
Jack viewed increased popularity within the frame of divine approval:
“Overall, I interpreted these events as the hand of God helping me to fulfill my commitment to post daily for 50 days. I don’t say this to displace recognition from the contributions of others, but rather to emphasize that God came through for my readers, and that it’s not all about my own effort.”
The error was thinking that a lack of popularity implied divine disapproval. Perhaps we should have cited Paul in Galatians 1:10 who said:
“As we have said before, so I now say again, if anyone proclaims to you a good news that is contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
Popularity is not important, as truth is rarely popular. Those who teach a false gospel are anathema. False gospels are people pleasers.
With all this in mind, the 2021 Sigma Frame Performance Report really should have clued us off on what was going to occur:
A special mention goes to Ed Hurst (author of Radix Fidem). Although he has not written any posts for Σ Frame, his close interaction with me through email has imparted foundational spiritual insights which have contributed to my own spiritual maturity and this has spilled over into many posts.
At this point it is hard to deny where this came from:
“It helps to recognize that truth (re: a prophecy being true) is not propositional (which is positivistic) but sentient (which is mystical).”
Pingback: Mysticism and Headship
I dont know if its has fallen, but what it has become:
Echo chamber for immovable, “laws” and “rules” and “maxims” of what being a man is.
*Having lots of sex or the opportunity for this “if they were not married”
*Having IOIs daily (even if you are married, and these women just-cannot-help-themselves bc they are attracted to “real masculinty’ they in that echo chamber all embody with ease) and then at the same time saying women are never held responsible, but they themselves claim “women cannot help themselves” in these matters
*Being able to bench press a house
*Having a well above average IQ (if you dont, sucks to be you, but “jesus still loves you”)
*Breaking down everything into an equation, a peg-board of unchangeable traits and if you just happen to get the “bad traits” well, again “sucks to be you, but jesus loves you more than anything”
*Scripture, they want you, “Mr. Common Man” to follow, but they dont have to, you see Jesus forgives THEIR sins and they justify all theirs anyway, so they really have not sinned, ever.
*If you cannot bench press a house, you might as well go kill yourself. All your free time is to be spent at the gym, getting IOIs from women, being a “leader” in your local red pill church and having sex.
*Divorce your wife if she gains more than three oz after your marriage or is tired and sex isnt enthusiastic from caring for your children all day, she obviously is lazy and doesnt respect your “headship”
*Behave like a juvenile around your wife or girlfriend. They think its hot.
*Make sure you have your life planned out by God and his mission for you by the time your are nine, or you obviously “failed” at life and deserve nothing
*Talk down to all men who are not as cool as you are
This is what Charlton meant by saying that SF is the most Positivist site that he has ever seen. I’ve always appreciated the way that you describe it.
A for al this prophecy talk, and mysticism, and other words. It just adds another “bureaucratic” layer to this whole mess they call “Christianity” and makes it even more confusing for a lay member, a newbie or person who wants to know “Jesus”
All the studies, and theological conversations are a gazillion times longer than the four Gospels and seem to be more important than what He said.
But even what said “cannot be agreed upon”
The author of confusion is alive and well in this world.
One of my post ideas has been about this topic. I think about how the atheists look at Christianity and see a million denominations and the supposed impossibility of figuring out truth from fiction: “How can I possibly know which one is true?”
There is a lot of fluff that has been added to Christianity. There is a general inability for people to sift the fluff out from the nuggets, because of the sheer volume.
Remember this challenge? Talk about bureaucracy!
There is a lot more that could be added to that list, especially because it doesn’t include any of the Protestant innovations. For example, if your cutoff for introduction is the late 4th century, many of the popular End Times explanations are out.
I can see why mysticism is popular, because it tries to avoid the confusing theological conversations. But that’s just ignoring the problem. It never really goes away.
This makes me think that after I finish up with these topics, I should finally go back to what started it all (here). Maybe I can rework and finally finish “The Life of Jesus: The Important Parts.” For me, Christianity has always been about its sheer simplicity and accessibility to the common man and the focus on knowing Jesus.
My earlier writings were about that (e.g. this article from 2017). More recently, you can see my attempt to avoid unnecessary complexity in my speculation-avoiding four-part series on Eschatology.
Despite this being my core belief, I find it a challenge to express this in my writings. I’m not sure how to make this a focus moving forward, but it’s probably something I need to try to do. While I write in an attempt to overturn overt complexity, it is hard to do so in a way that is not itself taken as a complex method! This is, incidentally, why I asked Surfdumb for advice a couple months ago.
Protestantism:
*Diaper Ministry (for all the babies and times are tough, the church should provide this)
*Greeter Ministry (ushers are the most important people in the church, but no one wants this most important job)
*Parking Lot Ministry (after church, all the real men have to get home quickly to watch football (a manly pursuit) and need parking lot directors to help cars get out of the lot without accidents)
*Youth Pastor (because all the teens in the church cannot be ministered to by the regular pastor, the youth need someone who can relate to them)
*Womens Ministry (the church hates women, so we have to have a ministry for them)
*Praise Team (smoke machines, high tech lighting, a performance more than praise and horrible songs are needed because the ‘young people wont come if we dont have this’ and did you know that Jesus would have LOVED having an iphone?!)
*Building Ministry (the real men head this, they want new churches, buildings, and of course another fund raiser to “reach out” and bring the local community to Jesus)
*Refreshment Ministry (another gossip session for people after church)
*Outreach Ministry (people that hand out Tracs and put notices on cars in private parking lots telling them to come to their church, and they always mention childcare)
*Director of Youth (this person coordinates all the Youth Activities usually going to a theme park, outings, and fun activities because parents dont have time)
*Singles Ministry (only allowed the single women of the church demand this otherwise its “not the churches job to minister to singles. Did you know Jesus was single?”)
*Mens Fellowship (Man Up speeches, and the “leaders” and “Alphas” of the church teaching and telling the rest of the men how worthless they are, lots of how dare you’ rants
*Missions Ministry (sending usually a pretty gal and handsome guy overseas to teach people about “Jesus” while ignoring the run down trailer park next to the county dump in their town / city)
*Babies Ministry (for the new moms, did you know their baby could bring the next Revival?)
*Christmas decorating ministry (a pagan symbol from ‘olde’ Germany, church must be decked out in this and other decorations)
*Church Board (these men are evidently the Saints of the local church, they determine the budget and if it falls short, its not their fault)
*Pastoral Care (to make sure the pastor gets a vacation, healthcare, a christmas bonu, and can have a nice home owned by the church to live in and armed guards too at the larger more affluent churches….pastor is so dangerous to the devil, he needs more protection)
Can list a thousand more if you would like
The early church fed the poor out of the eucharist (tithe offering) which everyone brought. The “ministry” was collective. Everyone participated by bringing their tithe whenever they met. There was no one specific person assigned to do it as “their ministry.” Those present who were in need too their share from the gifts. The only specific role was that deacons (who were more like workers than leaders) delivered the food to those in need who were not present.
This worked fine for hundreds of years until the tithe was no longer gathered to help the poor and the gifts that people could offer were slowly reduced until it was just bread and wine (and later, just money). No longer were the deacons responsible for same-day distribution to those in need, but the gifts were now stored in the bishop’s storehouse, mostly to be used to pay the growing class of for-profit clerics. The poor were largely forgotten.
These days you can go experience the Eucharist, but you won’t bring any gifts for the communion feast or for the poor. As a big plus, if you are poor, you’ll go home hungry. If you go to a big, expensive enough church, they’ll certainly ask you for money. Phew, at least that tradition remains!
The only thing on your list that is original to the church is the “church board” in the form of the elders of the church. At least that is established in scripture. Of course, as you note sarcastically, their job is supposed to be more spiritual and pastoral in nature.
Some Anabaptist congregations used the elders to perform “Pastoral Care” because that’s what scripture dictates. It’s not the job of the pastor, which is a much smaller role than the pastor of the average megachurch. More like the head/eldest teacher.
The vast majority of those ministries you cite are bureaucratic fluff. The small Baptist church I sometimes attend has perhaps two or three of them, and even there some are just informal. Clearly there is little essential to be found in this “ministry.”
Charlton notes that most “Christian” charity—and this covers much of your list—is not godly. Much merely distracts by stealing time from actual good and some is actively harmful.
You said much of what I was thinking, Derek. Our church only has a few of those, and it’s not a tiny church. 250-300, maybe? So not a megachurch either though. And a LOT of young kids.
But no youth pastor (don’t believe in it), no official singles ministry (though singles do occasionally meet for events), no building ministry, no parking ministry. Most of the stuff that would fall under these headings are things that happen organically among the parishioners in their own homes, on their own dimes.
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the early church was somehow void of misbehavior, sin, or gossip (anyone read the letters to Corinth lately?). This is one of the biggest faults of modern traditionalists and reactionaries: a pining for the good old days that never were. There hasn’t been a congregation of people untainted by sin since Eve was deceived by the serpent.
And whatever faults Protestantism engages in (and they are many), it pales in comparison to praying to the dead, buying sin tokens and purgatory.
Pingback: The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 1
Pingback: The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 2
Pingback: Heart and Mind
Pingback: Making Your Own Choice
Pingback: Dr. Michael Heiser