The main problem with mysticism is that it hides what Christ has revealed. It confuses what has been made clear. It wraps in mystery that which isn’t a mystery. Consider this statement from “The Parable of the Four Soils:”
The mark of the mystic is a lack of clarity.
It is with this in mind that I found this comment on Radix Fidem (emphasis added):
I never thought about that possibility, and wonder how many other things we are wasting our time on.
Those who want to deceive themselves into thinking they understand the Word are doing so to cover the very conceit that is motivating them to do so in the first place. What they also cannot see is that it is obvious basically to everyone else besides those who happen to be on the same crusade.
It is the blind leading the blind. Ultimately they offer you nothing.
They don’t even understand the motivation of those who seek to evangelize, to disciple, to teach, and to correct. Compare what John the Fool (aka John Providence) and Radix Fidem’s series on the Old Testament Hebrew language have said with what Scripture itself testifies about the Old Testament:
Does that sound like a waste of time to you?
They think our motivation came because we didn’t understand the Word and sought to resolve this difficulty. But, as Jason often points out, it’s not all that difficult to read and understand and do what Jesus taught. Even Paul taught that the gospel of Christ is simplicity! The primary problem has never been difficulty, but a desire and willingness to do so. That’s the point of the rocky soil in the Parable of the Sower.
Their view of the Word of God is as I described in “The Living Voice,” where scripture is viewed as “voiceless and difficult.” Roman Catholics offer you false hope in their authority structure. Mystics offer you false hope in their experiences and spiritual power. Positivists offer you false hope in their ‘science.’ None of these reveal what has already been revealed.
Radix Fidem is discussing “Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek” by Thorleif Boman. This book contrasts the nature of the Hebrew and Greek languages. One Amazon reviewer provides these quotes to illustrate this:
”If Israelite thinking is to be characterized, it is obvious first to call it dynamic, vigorous, passionate, and sometimes quite explosive in kind; correspondingly Greek thinking is static, peaceful, moderate, and harmonious in kind.” (27)
”[Hebrew thought] is analytic, ‘bin’ meaning ‘understand’ really means ‘to dismember, separate’. . . . The Hebrew separates the non-essential and external from the essential and important in order to find the heart of the matter, and in order, once having found it, to express it as briefly and pointedly as possible. Once the point has been discovered there is no purpose in setting forth a detailed demonstration with an extensive development of ideas.” (203)
What Boman does is reveal what we know (and do not know) about languages and how this applies to our understanding of scripture. This is a good thing. It only serves to increase our understanding. It is anything but a waste of time.
The Hebrew or Aramaic speaking authors who wrote the New Testament wrote it in Greek. Whatever the conflicts and differences between the languages are, the writers of the New Testament didn’t see this as a burden that even required a mention! Paul, revealed the gospel to Greek-speaking Gentiles. Peter revealed the gospel to Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. Jesus, the apostles, and the early church largely used the Greek Septuagint for a few hundred years.
For those who do not know, Anabaptism has its origins—in part—in German mysticism.[1] What Ed Hurst describes here is not something new or particularly objectionable. He’s not saying anything I did not already know. (Remember this discussion and my analysis?) So why am I not a Radix Fidem member?
In the book of Acts, Paul quoted from a Greek poet and referenced the Greek’s “Unknown God” in Athens. Paul routinely used examples from Greek culture (e.g. military organization) to illustrate his points. Paul told the Berean’s that their analytical approach to scripture was noble. A number of the Jesus’ parables and teachings borrow from Greek concepts, and many of his teachings involve chreia (aphorisms), a common Greek literary practice. When the debates rose about whether or not the Gentiles had to be Judiaized, Paul rebuked Peter who had insisted upon it. Peter even had to have a mystical experience—a vision—before he could get past his Hebrew prejudices!
This is not to say that the Hebrew language (and culture) is unimportant. But that the very mindset of the Hebrew means that analysis of Hebrew—and of its mindset—is itself of limited import to understanding God’s Word. To wit:
Paul was able to instruct his Greek-speaking listeners that their Greek-language Septuagint was scripture: fully sufficient for their use. Once that point was made, there was no purpose in setting forth a detailed demonstration of the superiority of Hebrew thought, with a corresponding extensive development of that idea. This was unnecessary. No apostle ever did this!
By applying this Hebrew mindset to scripture, it turns out the you don’t need to have a degree or an extensive knowledge in ancient Hebrew and Greek in order to understand the gospel. As long as the point has been made, no further elaboration is required. Right? RIGHT?!
Sorry, guys. You may want to sit down. I have bad news:
Tangent: For all those who claim that the reading and understanding the Bible should not require graduate level training in Biblical Studies, your arrogance is showing. Translating Hebrew thinking into English is extremely difficult, and the results are numerous different translations, all of which clearly miss the point in one way or another…
Yes, you can probably meet Jesus in just about any English Bible translation, but you will not be able to walk in His Covenant and bring Him due glory without that vast depth of knowledge. That was the reason He died on the Cross. You may be content to just step inside the gate and camp out there; we want to accept God’s invitation to wander the Garden of Eden at His side.
Do you agree? Let me know in the comments. And, try not to be arrogant, okay?
Footnotes
[1] Per Wikipedia, James M. Stayer, Werner O. Packull, and Klaus Deppermann sated that:
Wikipedia further notes:
Eric 7.26.13 / 12am
From ‘Marry for Money’:
“The last few marriage threads were about the importance of tingles. I heartily agree!” Then, later: “Economics is more important to marital success than romance.”
What’s up with this bitch? LOL
Specimen of how important either tingles or economics really are to women:
http://www.men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/06/nonsense-and-idiotic-philosophy-in.html
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.26.13 / 12am
lzozozozo
well as one can see
for women its either bitt or gina tinglzlzozo
or money
but christ and idealism and genesisi and honor and morality and love have no place
in marriage
and now with women at the helm
defining marriage
in their fundamentally soulless manner
marriage is
dyingz zllzozozol
Travis Alexander 7.27.13 / 12am
I read that article on TC and it seemed kind of hypocritical or was it just me?
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.27.13 / 12am
lzozoozozlzlz no it was not just youzzllzozozlzo
Eric 7.29.13 / 2am
GB4M & Travis:
It occurred to me later after reading the Traditional Christianity link, that almost NONE of these Churchian/Game/femRA blogs rarely, if ever, have anything whatsoever to say about what should be the most fundamental thing in a marriage or relationship: the ability to give and receive LOVE.
‘Love’ seems to be a term almost never encountered in these circles. Everything is about sex and money and manipulation—but love is rarely even mentioned at all.
Maybe this is because the ability to give and receive love is a foreign concept for them. All these other issues wouldn’t be issues at all if two people were genuinely in love with one another. But if the Churchians and Gamecocks faced this issue, they would have to confess MISANDRY is at the root of the problem—and they don’t want to do that, but put up smokescreens and distractions instead.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.29.13 / 5am
exactly!
the churchian blogs mention love as often as they quote scripture–never!
zllzozozozozlzo
Elspeth 7.25.13 / 5pm
Some of us do reference the Bible in our marriage posts. Nope, no Moses, Genesis or Jesus here, but I feel confident that the Messiah endorses the words of The Apostle Paul and Solomon:
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/just-do-it/
Reply
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.25.13 / 9pm
lzozozolzloz
why not post the words of Jesus and Moses and Genesis?
did not Jesus state that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and Genesis?
Was not Jesus Christ, and not Paul, the founder of Christianity?
Did not Jesus speak for himself?
Here you can witness the commenter GKChesterton and other churchians on Dalrock’s blog calling the words of Jesus “Noise.”
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/what-we-need-is-more-chivalry/
Other churchians are teahcing that JEsus came to abolish the law, and are thus lying and/or talking out thier asses butthzozlzizozlzozo lzozozozol
New International Version (©1984)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation (©2007)
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version (©2001)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
International Standard Version (©2012)
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them,
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
“Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
American King James Version
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
American Standard Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Darby Bible Translation
Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
English Revised Version
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.
Webster’s Bible Translation
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Weymouth New Testament
“Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.
World English Bible
“Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Young’s Literal Translation
‘Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfil;
SEE? NO ARROGANCE just letting JESUS speak for himself!
Do you agree? Let me know in the comments. And, try not to be arrogant, okay?
YES!!
Triple AMEN even!
I always find it amusing when people say…
“The Bible is confusing and you can’t figure out what it means”
…but don’t substantiate their claims.
A majority of passages are not unclear at all: they are all in near-universal agreement. They don’t suffer from textual variants, theological debate, or translation issues.
If you are going to say…
“[translations] all of which clearly miss the point in one way or another”
…you better bring receipts! The general claim that they all occasionally miss the point is just not relevant at all. We’re all more than capable of reading multiple translations, so if any one or two of them miss the point one way or another, it rarely matters.
When it does matter, we can deal with that on a case-by-case basis. A few disputed sections does not invalidate the whole Bible.
The vast majority of confusion with the Bible comes from pressing it to say more than what it actually says. People have these ideas about what the Bible should say and so interpret it accordingly. But that’s their error, not the Bible’s.
Most of what we debate is not what the Bible actually says, but our interpretations. But if we agree on what it actually says, this constrains the range of possible interpretations. All the alternative interpretations under debate must conform with scripture.
For example, we might debate what is meant by “fulfill.” Did this mean that the OT prophesies came to pass in the life and deeds of Jesus, or does it mean that the OT laws were brought to their logical conclusion? Any of these are logically possible. What isn’t possible is the belief that Jesus did not fulfill the law at all in any way.
Those who make these unsubstantiated claims likely hold beliefs that don’t even meet the minimal standard of conformance with scripture.
For example, when Romans 12:1-2 says…
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice—living, holy, and pleasing to God—which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to the pattern of this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [Greek: nous; mind, intellect], so that you can test and approve what the will of God is—what is good and pleasing and perfect.
…there is no debate that Paul wants us to us our mind and intellect to test and approve what the will of God is. All the translations agree. Even the garbage non-literal translations get it right!
the churchian blogs mention love as often as they quote scripture–never!
Love is a core topic of this blog. Love is the essence of the Gospel and of faith (see: “Justifcation by Faith, Part 1”)
Well…..I will disagree in theory.
The Bible IS confusing and you cannot figure out what it means
I dont mean this as an attack. Because it isnt. This isnt ol Lastmod “turning people away from the faith” (the christian manosphere is doing that on their own without any help from me)
Its hard to read the Bible and ponder it. FOr starters, you have way too many leaders telling you “what” it means according to their denomination, or “bible expert” or what your Sunday school teacher said. Forget mens groups studying “the word” its either baby Boomer relating it all to sports or new age / lost wisdom-of-the-near-east with very complicated concepts.
When I tell people to read the Bible I tell them to get one with the “red lettering” (the actual words of Jesus) and to start with Mark. The shortest and most basic Gospel. I stress, you dont need to study ‘Bible history” under some sage to understand what Jesus taught.
The again, the actual words that Jesus used are up for debate in some corners of the ‘sphere today.
I try to tell people who do want to learn “Jesus taught to many who were illiterate, who had nothing…no means, no status, no advantages in the world. Zero. Yet, these people still came to hear. If they can have a desire for this “way” and “hope” for a better life, we can get plenty from it too.”
I also tell people “Prayer was first. In all things.” In The Salvation Army, we had supposedly “prayer warriors”. People with this “gift” who could pray and fervently without babbling on and on and on and had the gift and talent and ability to “encourage” and teach others how to pray better or more effectively.
Christians tell us “prayer is the most important thing” and yet……………and yet……………..the people who DO actually have a mindset for prayer or this “gift” here are scorned, and of course….everyone in the ‘sphere is “better than you at it”
I once called for a prayer meeting at my local Corps at The Salvation Army. Several people showed up. In five minutes they were done and I was thinking “Huh? How do you claim the Kingdom of God and come out with expectation and hope and fulfillment when you asked God for a minute or two?”
I was solid in prayer, but God never replied directly to any of my prayers.
I heard the words “we need a Revival! Lord, send the fire!”
My question was always “What would we (our local Salvation Army Corps) do with a Revival? How would we use it? How do we ask for a revival when we are not praying specifically of how this revival would be used in Fresno, or to the greater area?”
I know, I know…..God “knows our hearts” and he would be happy that we are asking…thats all that counts! Sloppy evangelism and sloppy work for the Father who wants us earnestly to ask, and have a purpose for it. Its “christian virtue signaling” now.
I encourage people to pray and ask, and listen and think. Sometimes the silence is the best thing. Perhaps you can….in that silence…..figure out a problem you need help with, or a better understanding of who Jesus really indeed was, and how his teachings are good. Of God and for you.
I dont know how to say it. The Bride of Christ is filthy, and the only ones who want to clean it are “not allowed” to do so in the structural / socio-sexual heirachies of the modern western church. That includes Orthodoxy.
The church itself is a social club, and for most men……they aint welcome…unless you are Oscar, Jack, Scott and others.
Well…..I will disagree in theory. The Bible IS confusing and you cannot figure out what it means. I dont mean this as an attack. Because it isnt.
I don’t disagree that there are parts of the Bible that are confusing. And there are certainly still mysteries of the divine that have never been revealed and never will be, even perhaps in the pages of scripture.
And yet countless people have read the words, even the KJV with its obscure language, and found Christ there. Much is not confusing. Much is not a mystery. Much has been revealed. After all, when Jesus told the Parable of the Sower, he gave his disciples the meaning. He explained it and they understood. Paul wrote that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the person dedicated to God can be fully capable, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
These two things are not contradictions.
There is no justification for throwing out what has been clearly revealed just because we don’t know everything.
Its hard to read the Bible and ponder it. FOr starters, you have way too many leaders telling you “what” it means according to their denomination, or “bible expert” or what your Sunday school teacher said.
Sure, but that’s not necessarily because the Bible itself is confusing. Many teachers can’t accept that we don’t know everything and leave it at that. They insist that you accept their theology “or else!”
Why can’t Christians just accept a simplified version of Christianity? Why over-complicate it with theology?
The point I’m making in the OP with regards to Boman’s HTCG is that you don’t need to know all of that. It wasn’t essential to Jesus, the Apostles, or the early church, so how can a group like Radix Fidem say that it is now essential 2,000 years later? Why are they overcomplicating it?
I’ve got to run, but I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later.
You mention church as a social club and you mentioned Oscar, but I’ll be honest with you. His church seems to be pretty good, and it seems to be having a real positive impact on him. If you compare his positivity to Deti’s negativity, it becomes stark.
I think his church is one of the few genuine ones. I certainly have no substantive reason to criticise it.
I can say with a good amount of confidence, they would hate a man like me walking in, a drug addict. They would hate a woman who had a “high N count” and had a child out of wedlock. They hate men who dont have a good job or have provision.
His comments over the decade show this. His church is for men and women like him. Perfect. Arrogant and who have it all figured out.
Do you know how long he’s been at his current church? I’ve, honestly, never really paid that close attention to his church until his recent disagreements with Deti.
He moved from Missouri I believe, and now is in Idaho has to be a year or two. Every church he belongs to “follows the word of God to the lettter” and women are feminine, wear sundresses and have “arms full of toddlers” and everyone is married at 19 or whatever.
Such luck in finding two churches just like this. From all his chatter / clatter with me from day one. Even when I belonged to the “wrong” church and even when I professed the faith
He didnt welcome me, and I gather the crowd he attends church with is the same. Have zero debt, have a good job, be married at 22, have your life figured out by the time you are 16……otherwise you “didnt put the work in”
Maybe this is some Internet posturing. Steroid use? Maybe its him just having an Ego the size of God. From his behavior, a homeless man could walk into his church and be immediately questioned of “why” he is here and then told “he deserved his status in life”
No thanks. I deal with that in the secular world. In church? Its of this world. How attractive. How much you have. How “holy” you are in front of others. Throwing stones at a glass house, and smelling “weakness” in lesser men and bullying them.
I feel for his future son-in-law. That guy is doomed.
I have attended various churches where the women are feminine, wear dresses, and have “arms full of toddlers.” I’ve also attended a church where the drunkard and druggie study the Bible alongside the intelligent and the leaders, a place where a man like you would give the occasional sermon if you so chose. All of these were Anabaptist churches in Pennsylvania.
I can’t speak to whether or not Oscar has a legitimate church, or whether it is just internet posturing. But I can speak to their existence. Were I to move back to Lancaster, I’d need no luck to find another.
You seem to be in a similar situation to me. We both have jobs and lives that keep us in areas where it is simply not possible to find the kind of church we need, and so we are forced to go it alone. The churches around us have no need for men like us. It is a sad state of affairs.
On this blog we debate the actual words of Christ when it matters. This happens from time to time when there are textual variants. But most of the time it doesn’t happen.
Most of the manosphere doesn’t care about textual criticism. I can’t remember the last time we’ve debated Christ’s words. It is usually Paul.
This is mostly rare because we have so many versions of the Bible easily available. You can mostly immunize yourself against this problem by reading different Bibles.
I don’t opine much on prayer because it would make me a hypocrite. Many men in the sphere pray more than I do. I generally defer to men like you when it comes to prayer.
I’ve been thinking about what you said. How confusing, really, is the Bible? Consider the Parable of the Sower.
The first soil is what you describe: those who hear the message, but reject it outright. Perhaps it confused them. Whatever the reason, the message did not resonate with them and nothing happened.
But the second soil is when people do receive the message, even with joy. They hear what it is saying, but they stumble over it in their unbelief. The message itself scandalizes them.
I don’t think confusion (the first soil) is the biggest problem. I think unbelief (the second soil) is.
In “Review: The Path is Very Long” we found that Catacomb Resident wanted to add extra-biblical material to scripture.
In “On Prophets and Prophecy” we found that Ed Hurst minimized scripture with the term “bibliolatry.”
In “Sigma Frame Has Fallen” we found that John Providence was questioning the importance of the Bible.
In “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 1” we found that Tim Keller pointed to Roman Catholic mystics instead of scripture, when scripture would have directly demonstrated his claim.
In “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 2” we discussed how scripture was minimized by John Mark Comer for occult experiences in the mainstream church.
In Dr. Michael Heiser we discussed how he rejected biblical inerrancy and relied heavily on non-canonical, extra-biblical material.
In “They Can’t Understand the Word, Part 2” we saw how Jack minimized the ministry and words of Paul.
Way back in “Deti on Hypocrisy”, we noted the elevation of personal anecdotes (here) as a driver of “truth.”
These are just a few examples.
As I said previously:
These are not people who are confused by the Bible, they are men who do understand it, but don’t like what it has to say.
Pingback: They Can't Understand the Word, Part 2