NOTE: For a larger discussion of the what the ‘seed’ in the Parable of the Sower is, see Part 2.
Two men perform, side-by-side, the exact same work. Yet only one is justified: his work is found to be true. The other is rejected, his work is found to be false. Both received the Word of God. But only one truly believed. The other rejected the message. Jesus recounts this story in Matthew 7 (emphasis added):
…
Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
…
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter in. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you who work lawlessness!’” — Matthew 7:13-23
In “Postivism,” we described how people try to embrace contradictory views, but that this prevents them from fully embracing God. Inevitably, each person is forced to choose who their master is, whether or not they will choose God or the contradiction to God.
For example, many people made their choice of master when the church was commanded by the government to shut down in 2020 and 2021 in the face of Covid-19. A few chose to obey God rather than man, but most did not (including every major denomination). Few repented.
A profession of faith in God is not sufficient proof that one has abandoned hostility towards God. Not even possessing great supernatural powers, including prophesying in Christ’s name and successfully casting out demons, is proof.
Mystics try to convince me that their experiences and powers prove their faith (even though such experiences are contradictory with others who make the same claims). But spiritual experiences have two possible sources, not one. One is God, the other is demonic. The mere fact of the reality of the spiritual isn’t enough to determine which source is the origin. No matter how good it feels, no matter how much joy it brings, no matter how effective the miracles, no matter how many converts it nets, none of that is validating.
Christ used a different standard. He said that only those who do the will of the Father will receive the Kingdom. He called the great spiritual works that remained “works of lawlessness,” regardless of how real and validating those works seemed to be to the practitioners who did mighty works in Christ’s very own name.
So the key question we should all be asking is this:
How does scripture say that one knows the will of the Father?
The answer is simple: by the application of the renewed mind, intellect, reason, and critical thinking in relation to Christ.
Anyone who rejects the mind cannot test and approve what the will of God is. If they cannot know what the will of God is, how can they know Christ? They cannot, and none of their experiences can change this.
The modern church has abandoned reason and objective truth, knowledge, and understanding for blind faith, mysticism, and relativism. As we discussed in the last post, “Western” rationalism and “Eastern” mysticism—two modes of thinking—have the same end when removed from God.
In today’s post, we’ll discuss Jesus’ Parable of the Four Soils (the Parable of the Sower).
This is among Jesus’ most famous parables. Those who heard this parable did not understand the significance of what Jesus was saying. The reason for this, along with Jesus’ explanation, provides insight into the questions we have been considering, such as:
How can someone who makes a profession faith be rejected by Christ, who says “I never knew you?”
How can a rejection of reason, intellect, and the mind be a rejection of Christ?
After Jesus told the parable, his disciples asked him “Why do you speak in parables?” Let’s see how Jesus answered (emphasis added):
“Why do you speak to them in parables?”
And he answered and said to them,
“Because the knowledge of the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven has been given to you, but it has not been given to them. For whoever has, more will be given to him, and he will have an abundance, but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. This is why I speak to them in parables, because although they are seeing they do not really see, and although they are hearing they do not really hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you, that many prophets and righteous people desired to see the things that you are seeing, and did not see them, and to hear the things that you are hearing, and did not hear them.
The word translated “sacred secrets” above is the Greek word mustērion, from which our word mystery and mysticism is derived. It refers to sacred knowledge. Here Jesus is saying that the disciples had received revealed knowledge of the divine, but the people had not.
The Parable of the Sower is about receiving knowledge and one’s response to that knowledge. Christian “mysticism” is receiving God’s words, believing them, and understanding them, thus receiving knowledge of God.
Neither Key alone is sufficient. If one hears the preaching [Knowledge], but does not believe [Faith], it is not sufficient, for Knowledge must be Believed:
Likewise Faith is not sufficient unless it has Knowledge as its object.
Citation: Timothy F. Kauffman, “Last to Know, Part 4.” Out of His Mouth blog
It is a sad state of affairs that the mystics stress belief without the object of that belief: the knowledge which has been preached. Faith is inextricably linked to knowledge. Both are required for understanding. This is why blind faith is incompatible with faith in Christ. It is faith without understanding. This is why any mysticism couched in vague language of mystery—and a lack of capacity to comprehend it—is not of Christ.
As Jesus said, above, a lack of understanding indicates that the hearer was hearing without understanding and seeing without perceiving. A lack of comprehension is proof that one is not spiritually mature. The mystics who only offer mysteries—and no knowledge—prove that they are in the group that God has not revealed understanding. So when Radix Fidem members cannot explain their spirituality, their truth, in terms that can be understood by other Christians, they merely prove that the knowledge of the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven has not been given to them.[1] Those of us who have received them have no such trouble.
Now let’s read Jesus’ explanation of the Parable of the Sower and see how the four soils demonstrate the interplay between faith and knowledge.
When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the Wicked One comes and snatches away what had been sown in his heart. This is the one that was sown alongside the path.
And the one that was sown on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the message and immediately receives it with joy, yet he does not have any root in himself, and thus is short-lived. When hardship or persecution arises because of the message he immediately falls away.
And the one that was sown among the thorns, this is the one who hears the message, but the worries of this age and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the message, and he becomes unfruitful.
But the one that was sown on the good ground, this is the one who hears and understands the message, who then certainly bears fruit; and some yield a hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.”
The first soil is the heart of one who hears the message, but lacks any understanding of it. They do not receive the knowledge nor do they believe it.
The second soil is the heart of one who hears the message and believes it with joy, but it does not take root within himself. Though they may believe for a long time, when that faith is ultimately challenged, the lack of knowledge and understanding is revealed and they immediately fall away. Though they “believed,” they are nonetheless revealed to have a soil—a heart—of stone. Their heart was not—and never had been—renewed by the message. The knowledge was not received: they turned away because of the message! They stumbled in the unbelief of the Word of God.
Those who turn away find the message—the Word of God—to be insufficient. This includes those who choose to follow government directives rather than the directives of God. This includes converts to Roman Catholicism who became discontented with scripture and needed someone else’s authority. This includes the mystic who is discontent with the sufficiency of the Word of God in scripture and seeks other powers and sources of knowledge (and validation). Such men believe, but do not have knowledge and so their belief is like those who prophesied and cast out demons, but whom Christ did not know.
The third soil is the heart of those who believe and receive the message, but who are unfruitful as Christians. Perhaps they add their own theology—foundation—upon what Christ has revealed. Or perhaps they just get distracted. Regardless, they fail to reap a harvest. Paul describes such a man as only barely being saved from fire, having experienced a complete material loss:
It is worth noting here that it is not always self-evident whether another man has a heart of the second or third soil. In many cases, only God himself can truly know, for in both cases the man is unjustified in the sight of God: his visible works are proven false.
But we can know if a man teaches against the Word of God. Scripture makes simple that in the category of false prophecies, false gospels, and false messiahs, one must be alert for deception. Test, test, and test again.
The fourth soil is the heart of those who believe, receive the knowledge of God, understand it, and produce a harvest.
Paul, echoing this parable, tells Timothy that only those who have matured in faith may become overseers:
The church must ensure that only those whose hearts are like the fourth soil may oversee the church. Overseers themselves must remain subject to the church. There is no room in the church for cult personalities or unaccountable leaders.
This is how two men can perform, side-by-side, the exact same work, but only one is justified: only one of their works is found to be true. To fully believe is to hear the Word of God, to believe in it, and to understand it. It requires both faith—intellectual assent—and knowledge. The parable shows that faith—intellectual assent—is more than merely receiving or reciting facts. That is not true belief. True belief goes much deeper.
To have head knowledge that Jesus was raised from the dead is heart knowledge, because heart knowledge is head knowledge. To be head-led is to be heart-led, because heart-led is head-led. To reject head-led or head-knowledge is to reject heart-led or heart-knowledge.
Kauffman doesn’t identify why Christians have split “head” and “heart” knowledge. One answer is positivism and its fruit: blind faith. Another is mysticism. Still another is that the neophytes—new plants with hearts of stone or hearts entangled in thorns—became leaders of the church.
Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen examples of all of these. What they all have in common is this: deemphasizing scripture for something else. As in the example of positivism, this creates a conflict cannot be rationalized.
In the next post we’ll continue exploring these topics.
Footnotes
[1] Radix Fidem is full of men who pray a lot. There is no question that they are sincere and devout in their practices. They ask…and they receive. But that doesn’t mean they understand. In “A Decree to Rebuild” I noted that, despite getting the chronology of Daniel wrong—where the conclusions did not hold logically—the correct answer was still found. When knowledge is revealed, even expressed, it isn’t always apprehended as such.
[1] Radix Fidem is full of men who pray a lot. There is no question that they are sincere and devout in their practices. They ask…and they receive. But that doesn’t mean they understand. In “A Decree to Rebuild” I noted that, despite getting the chronology of Daniel wrong—where the conclusions did not hold logically—the correct answer was still found. When knowledge is revealed, even expressed, it isn’t always apprehended as such.
As MOD has said before & I have believed or at least suspected since around Summer 2012”these ”red pill” guys love female approval”.And speaking of that here comes ”jacks” latest post.:
Why are women attracted specifically to men who won’t commit?
Posted on 2024-09-04 by Jack
It’s because these men are displaying dominance, among other things.
Readership: All, especially Christians
Theme: Transactions
Author’s Note: This post is based on an email from a happily married Christian wife and mother, received on 2024/8/17. Edited for readability. Jack’s additions at the end are in blue text.
Length: 1,400 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
Intro
In Belief, Cognition, and Faith (2024/8/15), Jack posed the question,
“Why are women attracted specifically to men who won’t commit?”
AngloSaxon answered,
They think they can change him.
They don’t want marriage, they just want fun.
Speaking as a woman, I have a different take on it.
From a WOMAN’s point of view, we are NOT stupidly running after men who will not commit. We are attracted to men who display dominance and have a purpose, and therefore offer a lifepath that a woman can fit herself into.
But there’s a lot more to this. Let me explain.
A Woman’s Role of Purpose
What are women designed for? In other words, what is the PURPOSE of women? It says right there in Genesis 2:18:
And the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.“
In other words, the wife is designed to be the helpmate for the man. Not the other way around like feminism would like. In feminism, it is MAN who is a helper of WOMAN.
The difference between men who will not commit and men who will commit is not a question of COMMITMENT. It is a difference in ATTITUDE.
The man who will NOT commit has the woman in his life because SHE serves HIS purpose (which is often nothing more than sexual relations these days). If she does not fulfill this role, she is out. So she is the one who has to prove herself as WORTHY to be in his life. This builds ATTRACTION as it ironically aligns with God’s Biblical purpose for the woman. She finds him attractive as SHE is the one proving herself to HIM.
With the man who will commit — HE is trying to convince HER to accept his proposal and so HE is proving himself to HER. So she loses attraction to him. That is NOT her God-given role in a relationship.
During Courtship
Jack asked me a long time back how I secured my husband’s proposal. It was actually quite simple. My husband informed me about HIS purpose, HIS vision, HIS mission in life — building his business and his family. And he needed a wife who would support him in that. That meant a whole bunch of things — from learning to live frugally till the business could turn a profit; to understanding the long hours of work from his side that would be required (time that he would not be able to share with me), and the need for a peaceful home when he got back at the end of the day.
My husband did NOT make a marriage proposal to me because he loved me. I am not saying he did not have feelings for me — obviously he did, or else we wouldn’t have even had that conversation in the first place. But the way he went about it was NOT an expression of romantic love like many men will do. Instead, he shared with me that this is what he was looking for in a wife and left it to me to decide if that was the kind of wife I could be. THAT sense of purpose was what BUILT my attraction for him.
Since my father picked the men I dated at the time, I was dating very successful men with high LAMPS. My husband was not the most outstanding man who courted me, but I still chose to marry my husband because with him I saw a life that we would build together. It was a life of PURPOSE — and I felt NEEDED by him for him to reach that purpose. It became OUR purpose.
Marriage is NOT about two independent people living a roommate life. Marriage is designed to be interdependent.
That did not mean my husband did not commit. But only when I agreed to be the kind of wife he needed was the proposal made. My husband did not qualify himself to me. He qualified himself to MY DAD. After that, I needed to qualify MYSELF to get that marriage proposal (which I did) when I agreed that I was WILLING to be that kind of wife.
I was not attracted to a man who did not commit. But what built the attraction was the attitude he had that I was the one who needed to qualify to be in HIS life.
Speaking as a Mother
I have heard my husband tell our sons that just because you are sexually attracted to a woman does not mean you are in love with her. However, it does mean (assuming she is available and you are in the season of life for marriage) you can ask her out on a date. And just because you love a woman does not mean you should ask her to be your wife. AN AWESOME WOMAN DOES NOT MEAN SHE WILL BE AN AWESOME WIFE. The question is whether this woman will be your helper or not. If not, then she does NOT get a marriage proposal regardless of what you feel. He also added, that is why it is important for all men to know THEIR purpose / mission in life and what kind of wife is required for that. You marry a helpmate. The PURPOSE defines the marriage. You make the RELATIONSHIP work to achieve PURPOSE. It is not the RELATIONSHIP that holds the marriage. It is the PURPOSE.
Discussion
Unfortunately, in today’s culture, the men who do NOT commit are the ones who are most following the BIBLICAL mandate: They are asking, “Is this woman suitable to be my helper?” Meanwhile, the men who ARE willing to commit are asking the wrong question: “Please marry me! … and here is why you should pick ME as YOUR husband.” The structure is inverted.
Women find men sexually attractive when it is the WOMAN doing the qualifying to be in his life and not the other way around.
The sad part is in today’s culture it is the CADS and JERKS who are asking women to qualify themselves. These men’s primary qualification is whether she puts out or not, and women are stupidly trying to meet this qualification without first securing a commitment. As long as these men receive sexual attention from women, they have no reason to commit, so the women do not get stable relationships.
But if a CHRISTIAN man (like my husband) has the same ATTITUDE — the woman needs to qualify herself to get a marriage proposal — it BUILDS attraction and establishes respect which is what my husband has from me.
It is the ATTITUDE which CHRISTIAN men need to learn. It is NOT about his COMMITMENT but about “Who is qualifying whom?” It is about which type of hierarchical structure that he is presenting to her. They need to explain or make clear exactly WHAT they want from a woman and WHY (which is BIBLICAL).
How to express the right attitude? For men, it is about expectations, and using those expectations to draw boundaries as to what he will accept from a woman. For women, it is also about setting boundaries in the form of saying “no”.
Conclusions
When men expect sex, and women qualify themselves for this by bedding down with them, then it leads to promiscuity and NO commitment.
When men expect wifely behavior, companionship, faithfulness, and help, then women must qualify themselves in this way to be chosen for commitment.
When men try to qualify themselves to women, then they are rejected at best, or end up with a domineering wife at worst.
The modern problem is that women don’t want marriage until after they’ve disqualified themselves for marriage by qualifying themselves as sex toys to men who won’t commit. As long as women prioritize illicit sex over commitment, men expecting women to qualify themselves for commitment is useless.
For men, the modern problem is that men are not taught to place expectations on women, including and especially the expectation that women need to qualify themselves to be worthy of commitment. But this is a moot point if women have already disqualified themselves.
The difference between men who will not commit and men who will commit is not a question of COMMITMENT. It is a difference in ATTITUDE.
The man who will NOT commit has the woman in his life because SHE serves HIS purpose (which is often nothing more than sexual relations these days). If she does not fulfill this role, she is out. So she is the one who has to prove herself as WORTHY to be in his life. This builds ATTRACTION as it ironically aligns with God’s Biblical purpose for the woman. She finds him attractive as SHE is the one proving herself to HIM.
i agree with this because I rarely care exactly(all the little details as they usually only know the big picture anyway of anything) what MEN, women, or society says as it’s usually is ”insane and self-contradictory” like most blue, fed, or red ”genius leaders” gibberish nonsense.
I’ve been saying that for years. Remember “It’s a Military Term?”
It does seem that way.
Kauffman doesn’t identify why Christians have split “head” and “heart” knowledge. One answer is positivism and its fruit: blind faith. Another is mysticism. Still another is that the neophytes—new plants with hearts of stone or hearts entangled in thorns—became leaders of the church.
That is similar to what happened with the TRUTHS of the MGTOWosphere & ROISSYosphere with the new troll plants with hearts of tradconism or hearts entangled in ”traditional” butthext—became leaders of the churchianized ”MANosphere” which made a majority leave and start calling themselves blackpillers to distinguish themselves from these troll tradcon infiltrators who perverted what ROISSY & GBFM – the two main distinctive and overwhelming voices of the entire sphere who everyone( i.e. Athol Kay, Vox and DAL) wanted to emulate to be hip and down with young MEN. But most of the tradcon fanboys acted like 12yo boys as claimed here to:
Clayton C Davis
5y
Originally Answered: What do you think of the Red Pill on Reddit?
Married red pill in particular is garbage. Bunch of 12 year old boys calling each other “faggot”. Read all the recommended material in the sidebar. Dont bother interacting with the community, it’s a $#ithole.
& he’s talking about ”Mature” Married ”MEN”!
Who endlessly discredit & destroy with their insanity,unMANlyness & foolishness what’s left of the redpillosphere.
Pingback: Can't Understand
Two men perform, side-by-side, the exact same work. Yet only one is justified: his work is found to be true. The other is rejected, his work is found to be false. Both received the Word of God. But only one truly believed. The other rejected the message.
Yes so many MENZ were too ”introspective” & ignored reality(these same MENZ later would call the MENZ-mainly ROISSY & GBFM who didn’t ”redpilled”) as seen here :
okrahead says:
4 September, 2024 at 3:06 am
Weird Al was red pilled before it was cool like ROISSY & GBFM (but I speak as a shy guy who loved playing Dungeons & Dragons{even when Magic the Gathering came out in ’93/’94 I refused to play that as that might bring me out of my shell so to speak) instead of experiencing reality that I now call red pill cuz of Hollyweird and the two transexuals who made the Matrix films & to continue my love of being a social t@rd.)
Then they(”jack” mainly whose new cult RF must think sparkly discredits, defames & destroys the sphere as most non-insane sphere dwellers have known for almost eight(8) years now since he doesn’t link to him anymore)act like ”redpilled” didn’t exist until the 2010s(even though their ”red pill” ”Father” Keoni Galt was the only one{until the grifter tradcons known as Athol Kay & Susan Walsh(”jack” & sparkly remind me of them as they are NOT bright nor successful as they weren’t either and can only copy MEN of actual consequence and success in life & only attracted ”introspective” divorced MEN or wannabe divorced MEN who only want that quality leadership advice that fails every time but reassures said fools that ”I will lose honorably” as did their t@rded ”Conservative” ”Fathers” over the last 100+years) showed up in late ’08/early ’09} saying it in summer ‘o8 at his own ”TRUE” ”redpill” ”Father” ROISSY’S site.
Pingback: They Can't Understand the Word, Part 2
Pingback: They Can’t Understand the Word, Part 4
Pingback: The Parable of the WHAT?
Pingback: The Good Samaritan - Derek L. Ramsey