In this post, I’ll be reviewing Catacomb Resident’s most recent post. All emphasis has been added.
Let me simplify this as much as possible.
It is not the case that Radix Fidem rejects human reason. Rather, we put it in its proper place.
I have no doubt that CR fully believes this. But believing in something does not make it true. Remember when I wrote this:
Positivism is an inherently contradictory position. It is irrational. The belief the God exists coupled with the belief that he does not exist is a contradiction. Anyone who is both a positivist and a Christian holds mutually contradictory belief systems, a functional belief in unreality. There is no way to reconcile them. No one who is, in reality, a positivist can, in actuality, fully embrace faith in God, because both cannot be true at the same time. It doesn’t matter what they say: a contradiction doesn’t become valid by protest or insistence.
Or to quote Shakespeare:
The teachings of Radix Fidem are very clear that human reason is a fallen, fleshly act. I’ve documented this on many occasions now. As we’ll see below, CR reiterates that claim below. There is no way to reconcile this with not rejecting human reason. It is a implicit contradiction. When one pleads that they be allowed to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously, this is called “special pleading.”
This is also called double-speak.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Below, I will show that this belief is unfounded, that Radix Fidem does indeed reject human reason.
There are two primary problems here that we will be examining. The first is that scripture itself gives the mind a more significant and central role than the peripheral (or subservient) one CR has described. The second is that CR is taking a clinical Western (or Hellenistic) approach to dividing the heart from reason and the mind.
Yes, you read that right. CR is minimizing what scripture teaches and he is doing it using methods inspired by Greek philosophy, that is, Hellenism. His argument against Hellenism is self-refuting, double-speak special pleading.
The reason I quoted the passage from “Positivism” above is because the view that the intellect is found in the human brain is a positivist statement. Positivism is…
The view that the intellect or mind is the brain is one of these claims. This distinction is common among the New Atheists. Naturalists or materialists believe that one cannot speak of the mind separately from the brain. Indeed, as John Lennox often points out in his videos, they view the mind as an illusion: all that exists is the flesh or the brain.
The materialist believes that the mind is nothing more than the brain—the organ of meat—that drives a human’s physical actions. Outside of the human body, the mind does not exist. When a person dies, their mind ceases to exist because the brain is no more.
Notice the claim:
The human brain. CR makes this claim over-and-over again in his writings:
Some of you aren’t going to understand this, but I’m obliged to try. Radix Fidem teaching assumes that the concept of “propositional truth” is bogus. That concept is inherently anti-faith.
…
Your brain cannot perceive divine truth. Your heart can, but anything that comes into your brain from the heart is necessarily interpreted into context. The moment you process truth into a mental construct, it ceases to be truth and becomes merely a human idea. It’s not a question of accuracy, but whether it leads you to please God.
See the separation of the brain from the heart? This is not a Hebrew view (nor is it mine). The Hebrew view is that the mind and intellect reside in the heart. In Hebrew thought, the “Heart and Mind” are inseparable parts of one’s whole being. In the Hebrew way of thinking, if the mind is fleshly, fallen, and anti-faith, then so too is the heart.
See the view that critical thinking—mental constructs—is inherently anti-faith? See when CR tells you he doesn’t reject the human reason, but tells you that the “brain” cannot even perceive divine truth and that any propositional ideas that it has are anti-faith, he is functionally rejecting the mind. Something that is anti-faith and cannot fathom truth has no proper place. If the truth ceases to be truth the very moment it is processed in your mind using reason, indeed becoming anti-faith, then there is no proper place for the mind.
CR can hem-and-haw and try to have it both ways, but we readers have the right to use our own discernment. We are not obligated to accept this false framing.
Remember last week’s post, “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 3?” There we noted how John Mark Comer, Michael Heiser, and Ed Hurst all tried to talk their way out of rejecting monotheism for polytheism. In particular, we saw Comer attempt to marry actual polytheism with the word monotheism in his “Creational Monotheism.” But, no matter how hard you try, you can’t dress up polytheism as monotheism. It is the same thing here. Faced with the obvious logical conclusion of his position, he tries to get you to believe two contradictory things at once.
His claim that one can’t ascertain truth by applying reason is clearly self-refuting (and special pleading). The moment you apply reason to the claims, you are forced to reject them. But if you accept that truth is not a matter of reason, then there is no—and can never be a—rational basis to reject his claims. Of course, then there would be no rational basis to affirm his claims either. One wonders why he bothers to write these articles, when to do as he says renders them irrelevant (i.e. “preaching to the choir”), while to disagree renders them highly relevant, but incorrect.
This, once again, brings forth a Western-inspired philosophy of the physical head and intellect, contrasting it with the “spiritual and eternal” heart. This is essentially a (Neo-)Gnostic claim. See this summary of the philosophical essence of Gnosticism:
Various persons and groups have been labeled Gnostic over the centuries, and most have shared ideas. The most basic of these is that all people carry within them a spark of divinity, but that they have lost knowledge of this divinity and of their true spiritual origin outside the material world. Rather than seeing a spiritual struggle between God and the devil taking place, Gnostics describe a conflict between the true, unknowable high God and a lesser god who rules the world.
At the level of philosophy, this is what Radix Fidem (and Michael Heiser) teaches.[1] It contrasts the fallen material brain (i.e. the flesh; mind) with the “spiritual” non-material heart (i.e. the spirit), pitting the One True God in heaven against the gods of the earth (in their Divine Council). Catacomb Resident is a (Neo-)Gnostic, though he will almost certainly balk at this because, as we found with the polytheism label, they don’t like their philosophy being described using words whose definitions accurately apply.
By contrast, here is what scripture says about the mind and intellect:
First, to the Hebrew and Christian, there was no distinction between the material and the spiritual, as we define those terms. When Jesus was resurrected, he had spiritual flesh that was also material and physical. Jesus could physically interact with his disciples and his resurrected flesh even bore the marks of his crucifixion in his hands! Of course this is not new. The angels are not merely spiritual, but can interact with what we call the material world.
When scripture speaks of the fleshly nature, it is speaking of the spiritual reality of the heart and mind. This is why it can talk about a fallen heart and a fallen mind, while also speaking of a renewed heart and a renewed mind. The distinction between “fallen” (or fleshly) and “renewed” is not a distinction of physical (material) vs spiritual (non-material).
So there is no such thing as a material mind and a spiritual heart.
Second, in Hebrew, the heart and mind are one, inseparable entity, but in the Greek (influenced by their philosophy) the heart and mind are separate. So when Paul—a Hebrew mystic—chose to describe the Hebrew concept of the heart and mind in Greek, did he choose the Greek words corresponding to heart (as Radix Fidem does in English) or the Greek words corresponding to mind (as I do in English)? He chose the latter. Consistently and repeatedly.
Paul was a highly educated Roman citizen and an ex-Pharisee. He understood both Hebrew and Greek. Paul could have attempted to keep his supposed Hebrew worldview by describing a heart-led approach. Or he could have described a dual heart-led and mind-led approach that more closely matched his Hebrew background. But he did neither of these. He described a mind-led approach to proving the Will of God.
Jesus—a Hebrew mystic—did much the same thing with the greatest commandment, where he explicitly added critical thinking to the requirements when he translated it from Hebrew to Greek.
Far from deemphasizing reason, Jesus and Paul went out of their way to use Greek works that emphasized its use. As we will see below, they did so as part of the Jealousy Narrative, the purpose of which was to show the flaws in the Hebrew worldview and how they led to them rejecting faith.
Third, not only does scripture not say that once truth enters the mind it becomes untruth, but it specifically states that we must discern what truth is by using our minds. Stop and consider this. Paul—a Hebrew mystic—said that we must use our mind to discern truth, the very will of God. Consider:
It has been well established by many scholars that the image of word in Hebrew is not a matter of ideas or content, but a mighty force of will.
Ponder this for a moment. When the Hebrews spoke of the word, as in the Word of God, they spoke not of ideas or content, but of a mighty force of will, that is, the Will of God. When Paul speaks of the Will of God, he’s speaking of the Word of God (and vice versa). And how are we to know the Word of God? By the application of the mind and intellect.
Fourth, Paul tells us not to be deceived by empty words. Empty words are precisely what CR is offering us. CR is actively emptying the words of scripture—the Word of God—of their meaning.
Fifth, to avoid empty words, we must use the discernment of our minds to test, prove, and examine what the Will of God—the Word of God—is. So when CR says “Reason is not capable of discerning the depths of divine truth” he stands in opposition to Paul, the Hebrew mystic. Paul said that reason is fundamental to discerning the divine truth, will, and word.
Let’s pause to emphasize this. The mind—intellect and reason—is required to discern—test and prove—what the Will of God is. Paul says exactly the opposite of what Catacomb Resident is teaching. The opposite. Discernment of divine truth requires the mind. CR’s teaching is a complete inversion of truth.
Notice that he has, once again, made the error found in Hellenism: assuming that the mind is material and that the spiritual (what he calls the “heart”) is non-material. This is not a Hebrew assumption, it is a Greek assumption.
Scripture makes plain that the heart is wicked. Faced with this apparent contradiction to his teaching, CR tries to get out of it….and fails. Did you notice how Paul said that the mind was renewed? We are not to use our fallen mind to discern the will and word of God, we are supposed to use our renewed mind.
When CR tells us not to use our fallen mind to try to apprehend divine truth, we agree with him. When he states…
…we are in full agreement with that too. Where we disagree is in this: we think we are supposed to use our renewed mind to determine divine truth, but CR wants us to not use our mind at all. Thus, when he states…
…we would say, rather, that the we not rely on the human mind (not physical brain) while it remains fallen in its “native” unrenewed state. But this no longer applies once it has been renewed. In this, we follow the Word of God, not Catacomb Resident who is deceived by empty words (i.e. ‘truth’ without meaning; lack of reason).
In instructing us on how to understand the Will of God, Paul made no mention of the heart (!!), but the heart too has been renewed by Christ. Both the heart and mind have been equally renewed. Why? Because the “Heart and Mind” are inseparable. Separating them is a Greek (Platonist or Gnostic) notion.
CR calls faith “feudal submission.” Notice that this term does not exist in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Just like the Roman Catholic, he’s brought invented terms into Christianity to justify his novelties and innovations.
CR is correct that you must choose between Christ or the Devil. There are only two spiritual paths. But CR has removed the very thing that allows you to discern between them: examining scripture with your mind and intellect. I know that CR serves the Devil, because his teachings go explicitly against scripture. The teachings fail the tests, and so cannot be from God. It is not his intention or motivation to serve the Devil—he’d rather serve Christ—but it is true nonetheless. Intentions can’t change reality, which is why deception is so insidious. But even if I didn’t know that, the fact that his viewpoints are Hellenized is a strong indication that his teachings serve Satan rather than Christ.
God has chosen to speak with us using words (whether Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or English). He always has. From the Old Testament prophets, angels, and law to Christ and the Apostles, revelation has been by word of mouth and by what has been written. This includes visions, dreams, and prophecies which must be interpreted into word-form.
Even if we, for sake of argument, agree that this is true, it just means that the human heart has a limited ability to perceive the full measure of the divine. It would only imply that the spark of the divine within us is not enough to fully apprehend that which is God in this mortal frame. Humans can never fully apprehend God, but this does not imply that we are, in any practical way, limited by our words and reason:
No Christian is obligated to be discontent with the knowledge of God that has been already revealed by God.
Jesus taught that a person is justified, not by their deeds, but by their words:
Trust Catacomb Resident when he tells you that he cannot absorb divine revelation. He is unable to teach you what God wants you to do, because he has not received what has been divinely revealed. He has rejected—as fleshly, fallen, and anti-faith—the very thing that is required to achieve faith and to understand the Will and Word of God!
Even if you bathed daily in the full consciousness of Hebrew thinking, you would be no better off than the mystical Jews who rejected Christ. What benefit was their cultural understanding? What benefit was their mysticism? It availed them nothing.
Far from emphasizing the importance of the Hebrew mindset, one primary purpose of Jesus’ teaching ministry (and Paul in Acts and Romans) was making the Jews jealous of the Gentiles. Jesus went out of his way to positively describe the Gentiles over the Hebrews, and it centered entirely on how they approached the Word of God.
Paul’s stock-in-trade in Romans is inverting the Jewish world view and turning it back on them relentlessly.
Cultural awareness will not save you, only your true words of faith in Christ.
…and…
…
Recall that Paul’s contrast in Romans 2:13-15 was between those who “hear the law” and those who actually “do the law.” It is the same contrast Ezekiel makes when he says, “they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness” (33:31). And it is the same contrast that Jesus makes in the Parable of the Two Sons in Matthew 21:28-32. The first son said “I will not: but afterward he repented, and went,” and the second said, “I go, sir: and went not.” Both heard “the Law,” but only one “did the will of his father,” and that son represents the believing harlots, tax collectors, and Gentiles. They were the “doers of the Law,” and not “hearers only,” for they believed.
…
And the fruit of justification by faith alone, through Christ alone, is obedience to the law.
The Greeks, with their non-Hebrew philosophies, found faith in Christ. They became the true Jews. The Jews, with their Hebrew thinking, culture, and mysticism did not. They were rejected.
The gospel of Jesus Christ does not require a knowledge of Hebrew thinking, culture, or embracing Hebrew mystical practices. Justification is by faith alone, because you believe. The fruit of that faith is obedience to the law.
The requirements to use Hebrew thinking, culture, or mysticism are attempts to seek justification by one’s deeds. But these will not—cannot—justify you for the same reason they did not justify the Jews (“hearers of the law”), nor were they required of the justified Greek Gentiles (“doers of the law”). The fruit of faith is obedience to the law, not the other way around. Catacomb Resident, though he cannot see it, is teaching an inverted “works-based” gospel.
Don’t be distracted by the talk of “technical word equivalence” or “Strong’s Concordance” or “translations.” None of that is directly relevant to what we are discussing. These are all red-herrings. Though you can if you want greater clarity, you don’t need to examine any of them in order to see that what CR is teaching you is a false contradiction. Nor do you need to take a bath in Hebrew culture. You can bathe each and every day and those teachings won’t get clean.
I have an old joke too: “Feminism is from Hell.” It is based on the Old Testament.
Footnotes
[1] The encyclopedia continues:
Like all pagan myths (including the pagan Divine Council of the Ugarit), the specifics of each iteration of the myths are not important, as they never remain the same (e.g. the changing identity of the demiurge), rather, the general concepts and philosophy are. Thus, we are not saying that Radix Fidem is a 2nd century Gnostic cult reborn, nor are we saying that they share the same rituals. What we are saying is that Radix Fidem is Gnostic (or at least implicitly Platonic, even as Radix Fidem explicitly repudiates Plato) in its philosophy.
Like Gnosticism, Radix Fidem emphasizes the unknowability of the divine knowledge of the high God while emphasizing the true God of heaven’s conflict with the lower gods who make up a Divine Council and rule the nations of earth. Both emphasize the superiority of recovering the true spiritual essence by setting aside the fallen nature of the physical, material world.
The similarities do not end there:
More more information on Gnosticism and the Divine Council, see here. For example:
The Gnostics at Nag Hammadi also taught that men can become divine after death, which is similar to Heiser’s view that humans take the place of the ruling gods of the Divine Council, because both are “imagers” of God: “Humanity will become divine and displace the lesser elohim over the nations under authority of the unique divine son, the resurrected Jesus.”
Even if you bathed daily in the full consciousness of Hebrew thinking, you would be no better off than the mystical Jews who rejected Christ. What benefit was their cultural understanding? What benefit was their mysticism? It availed them nothing like how ”Patriarchy is good but WE must obey Men rather than God as WE are chicken$#itted cowards bros”(”RP””Patriarchy”Acts 5:29) from supposed ”Patriarchial” ”redpillers”.
YEP, but wait your usual ”typical” GBFM comment has been interrupted for this:
Meanwhile, in another time, another place…
A Patriarchal Mutual Submission structure does exist and is promoted by MOSES, JESUS, GBFM, DEREK & MOD!
The false teachings of ”Lord/Lady”Sparkly are very clear that WE are not ”Obey God’s
holy order of Patriarchy, rather than(bluepilled) MEN”(Sparkly’s version”RP””Patriarchy” Acts 5:29)unless the government & their defiler voters are okay with it. I’ve documented this on many occasions now. As we’ll see below,” Lord/Lady” Sparkly reiterates that claim below after SD’s Q. There is no way to reconcile this with not rejecting GOD & his holy order of Patriarchy which WE must follow. It is an implicit contradiction(or just example 1234567890 or so of ”Lord/Lady”Sparkly’s endless false teachings and gibberish nonsense). When one pleads that they be allowed to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously, this is called “special pleading.”
This is also called double-speak(which sparkly is a genius on).
surfdumb
September 8, 2024 at 7:25 AM
OT: It might have been a SF or Spawny’s post, but someone had been writing about supportive women. It triggered an idea – what if the female ability to be deceived is their inability to reflect? It’s demonstrated by their unexplored belief in their own goodness(like tradcon ”Men” TBH). The way I’m thinking of it, it’s slightly different than pride.
I thought of this because I imagine that even a supportive Christian wife thinks something like, “he needs my (superior) help and it’s my duty to help (this inferior man with base drives and animal blindness.)” They say the words, and don’t know about the parts in the parenthesis, but that part is what they are believing, even though they don’t examine it, or know it. Believing in their goodness would explain their ability to be deceived.
It was an SF post that brought this up. The post written by a woman. I think acknowledging themselves as defiler who were created second, like you bang the drum on, would help pierce their pride and blindness.
The aunt of Colt ? the GA shooter said, “hurt people hurt people.” That type of sentimental garbage is a great example of being easily deceived and believing in one’s intrinsic goodness. That quote demonstrates the quandary women are in. Supposedly caring, means we’ll, but is ultimately harmful and covers her own sin, and mocks God by dismissing evil and sin.
In that specific case, she is right, that a 14-year old boy with a druggie Mother(like weakling loser ”male” vessel Elrushbo between ’98 & September ’03 ”cuz of muh back pain” when he got caught being lawless cuz of muh back pain) is being hurt.
The Dad tried to do what’s right maybe, but the courts and system worked for the Mom. Those school deaths are feminism’s(tradcons really) responsibility, not the Dad’s.
Like
Sharkly
September 9, 2024 at 5:41 PM
Surfdumb,
I think the weaker vessels are more challenged by a lot of things in life, but ultimately, they do bear their own slightly lesser share of personal responsibility and are still to be doing their absolute best to not fall prey to their sinful nature, considering their flimsier emotional, rational, and metacognitive, abilities.
Now if they choose to usurp their rightful male head, then they bear full personal responsibility(like weakling loser ”male” vessel Elrushbo after he got caught being lawless & ”voluntarily went to drug rehab”) which they have thereby taken over. Although that doesn’t completely absolve the usurped man if there are still practical tools for them to use to correct their female charges. But if there aren’t, then his hands are truly tied and he isn’t required to grovel, or rage, or cast about for more farfetched solutions, or to act too unbecoming of the gravity a man should maintain, or to make a fool of himself in a vain attempt to bring that rebellious woman back into order. It is one thing for people to wrongly disrespect a man and usurp his headship, but it is another matter for him to make a clown of himself by trying to grovel to get respect restored, or to waste his life futilely chasing after one who has left, or to pretend as though the mutiny never happened.
Once a woman has crossed the Rubicon and declared war on your standing as head over her for no good reason, nothing but her resounding defeat and her surrender will bring real peace. A mediated settlement where she gains something, allows that rebel to take pride in her rebellion, and next she will be making up a list of demands for her future rebellions to be carried out in a similar pattern to her latest successful rebellion, the next time you show weakness or whenever she feels a hankering for more drama.
Regarding Colt Gray, it seems he was the product of a long line of numbskulls(. The key at this point is to not let anybody quickly make new policies that will affect us all, based upon knee jerk reactions to a single anecdotal failure of all the other existing crime prevention systems to work properly. There were so many failures on so many levels, that imagining one more law with its accompanying impositions against everyone’s rights, will truly prevent many future crimes, shows a deranged faith in a government that already proved itself incompetent to properly perform its present duties. There is no way such feckless bureaucrats should be entrusted with more powers over the rest of us when they failed to properly employ even the lesser powers they already have.
And not to be a conspiracy theorist, but, when a father of a 14 year old who was previously investigated by the FBI for threatening a school shooting, buys his troubled kid the very AR-15 assault rifle that the Left liberals wants to target first, and he then commits his long-threatened school shooting, three months before an election just as the national campaigns are getting into full swing, that might only be stratospheric stupidity, and some insanity, and plenty of bureaucratic incompetence, but it sure also seems like exactly what the deep state would be wishing would happen at this same exact moment. Especially when immediately prior they were under the public microscope for a failed Trump assassination attempt. Why not switch narratives to something that serves their ends.
Like how ”redpillers”(who can barely keep their sit(s) lights on are supposedly responsible for RP Maxims going mainstream when it was shhh….really the black pillers (who better follow the TRUTH of reality instead of tradcon fairytales like most RP ”leaders” do) BUT I & Brian Forbes AKA Jack Wayne are well-known false teachers so it’s okay if we stretch the TRUTH to its very limits for our own promotion like I do slandering MOSES, JESUS, GBFM(mainly by being an Anti-Patriarchachist under the disguise of being pro-GOD’S holy order of Patriarchy-which is actually promoted by those dudes as well as their friends such as DEREK), Derek(in-general for years as I called him a liar in recent times-pot meet kettle right? LOL as I still lie about him TBH for once on my site)& MOD(in 2019 at my own ”RP” tradcon failing site)!