Reader Malcom Reynolds recently professed his skepticism regarding mystical religious experiences, especially the metaphysical assumptions underlying the so-called “Satanic Panic”:
I have no reasons to believe her testimony. I’m convinced after she finally read the NT, she made something up exploiting the confirmation bias of her new audience.
…
All “psychics” I ever encountered make a living with professional lying and they don’t stop that when they turn to exploit gullible Evangelicals. I judge the fruit, which has been the Satanic panic and I don’t consider this good fruit, because it gave a huge push towards secularization. If saying that is leftist propaganda, then so be it.
He has yet to confirm whether or not he thinks that mystical experiences are real or completely fraudulent. While his response will be interesting, we can still examine these issues, especially the part about examining one’s fruit.
Malcolm Reynolds takes issue with Johanna Michaelsen, whose primary claim is that the church (since at least the 1970s) has increasingly embraced occult mysticism, including throughout evangelical Christianity. In the next series of posts, I will demonstrate that she was and is correct, both on the fringes (e.g. Radix Fidem) and at large (e.g. megachurches).
Recently I’ve been discussing mysticism. In my last post on the topic “Test the Spirits,” I went over the scriptures that command us to verify and thoroughly examine revelations and prophesies. In “On Prophets and Prophecy” and this follow-up comment, I discussed prophecy in general as well as the inherent occult mysticism masquerading as “Christian” mysticism. In my last post “Headship is Still Not Authority,” I discussed wayne Grudem’s stance on the anachronistic concepts of headship and submission.
“What,” you might wonder, “does headship submission have to do with occult mysticism?”
To answer that, we first observe that Grudem has written two works on the the gift of prophecy (as described in the New Testament). One was his Ph.D. dissertation and the other his book “The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians.” Grudem’s theology is heavily impacted by his view of prophesy.
Stephen Kring wrote “An Evaluation of Wayne Grudem’s View of NT Prophecy,” an article which reviews Grudem’s stance on prophecy. The article is published on the website of the Grace Fellowship Church, located in Toronto, Ontario in Canada. Kring himself is pastor of the Bethesda Baptist Church in Delhi, Ontario.
It is my assertion that Grudem’s theological foundation regarding prophecy influences his work on headship submission. But before we discuss all of that, let’s have a reminder of a few recent comments regarding Radix Fidem’s prophecy (see the comment thread here):
Which would make Ed Hurst a false prophet, to which he admitted.
True, and yet….
By his own admission, Ed Hurst is a false prophet. That’s not my opinion. That’s what the Bible says. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Holy Spirit. Everyone who disagrees with the Holy Spirit is free to recognize Ed Hurst to be a very influential person in his spiritual life, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Where has Ed said that he is a false prophet? I believe the ‘prediction’ you are referring to is when Ed said Trump would win in the courts back in 2020 (?). He thought it was about the election results, but apparently it was not. But recently, Trump did win in the courts.
We will have to find what Ed wrote to pick it apart any further, and see whether he was speaking for the Lord or not.
That’s the problem with anointing oneself a prophet. Prophets don’t get to say “my bad bro”. When one claims to speak on God’s behalf, it’s 100% accuracy or nothing. A prophet doesn’t get to be sincerely mistaken when proclaiming what God supposedly revealed to him.
Oscar’s citation and explanation of Deuteronomy is spot on. His comment applies to all instances of prophecy generally. Thus it is interesting that it corresponds precisely to Stephen Kring’s viewpoint:
Kring is writing against Grudem’s counterviewpoint. The consequence of Grudem’s viewpoint on prophecy (here) is summarized:
…
Reflect on the dangers of the practice. It cannot help but detract from the centrality of the Bible as God’s final revelation. After all, the notion of God speaking right at this moment to my personal situation seems so much more exiting and dramatic than opening a 1900 year old book, or does it? How does modern prophecy really compare with true preaching of the Word of God when the Spirit is present and the truth is applied with power and assurance to the hearts of listeners? Modern prophecy, with its frequent triviality and banality, pales in comparison with good preaching.
A common critique of scripture is that it is alleged to be controversial and difficult to discern. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is dead and voiceless without a higher external authority. But those who argue this and then choose prophecy have just replaced one alllegedly subjective source of truth for one that is objectively ambiguous and unavoidably error prone. The prophecies referenced by Jack in the comment above are an excellent illustration of Kring’s point.
Grudem’s view of prophecy logically entails minimizing the both the authority of the objective Word of God as found in scripture and the strict right-or-wrong nature of prophecy. It exchanging these for subjective experience and a lack of clarity. In fact, Grudem demonstrates this in his own words:
Kring responds:
It is no wonder then that, in our examination of Grudem’s views on submission and headship, he replaces the firm foundation in scripture with historical anachronisms and fallacious reasoning. In fact, this is remarkably similar to Radix Fidem’s pseudo-historical, anti-rational approach (with is purported to be of the Ancient Near East).
The foundation of occult mysticism is the replacement of objective truth—specifically of the Word of God in scripture—and of rational thought with subjective truth (relativism) and the elevation of subjective personal experiences (or feelings; perceptions). Once you see that this is true, it is hard to miss it. Different writers dress this up in a different window dressing, but this common thread runs throughout.
For example, it’s really hard to miss Ed Hurst minimizing the received Word of God when he calls emphasizing the Word of God in scripture “bibliolatry.” It’s also hard, as Oscar noted, to miss direct contradictions with scripture (regarding the accuracy of prophecy). Oh, and he noted this too (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?
Well said.
For (another) example, it’s really hard to miss how many people point you away from what scripture says towards other “authorities,” such as other writers and other traditions (both secular and “Christian” throughout centuries). This includes the Roman Catholic belief that scripture is insufficient and you need other people to explain the faith to you just as much as it includes the dismissal of scripture from small groups like Radix Fidem. The message may look different, but the fruit is the same. And it’s very hard to miss when allegiance and loyalty are given to false prophets.
Pay attention to this foundation over the next few posts, as we discuss the corruption of the Sigma Frame blog (here), see how occult mysticism has penetrated to the heart of mainstream America, and finally revisit the unbiblical division of the heart and mind to discover the reasons why mystics hate it when you use your mind.
For (another) example, it’s really hard to miss how many people point you away from what scripture says towards other “authorities,” such as other writers and other traditions (both secular and “Christian” throughout centuries). This includes the Roman Catholic belief that scripture is insufficient and you need other people to explain the faith to you just as much as it includes the dismissal of scripture from small groups like Radix Fidem.
It’s only getting worse at a certain supposed ”Christian” reality-based site. As that John Providence commenter under the John the f@ol moniker responds to one of ”Jack” the scripture/Christ denier’s main white knights known as ”Sparkly” with his ironically hypocritical saying of ”I don’t follow my preferred & p@on-based, IOIS-hungry nerd herd group in using their group coded name-calling like tradcon ”redpillers” or even tradcon ”puritans” in 1692 did by following the commands of a group of teenage natural defilers=girls in the execution of nineteen MEN & women, do.”
John the Fool says:
2024-08-10 at 10:32 am
I sympathize a bit with your opinion here, but I am really replying in order to thank you for your post on Jesus’ use of hyperbole in the Sermon on the Mount. That was very eye-opening and resolved some struggles I had with understanding what Yeshua means. I am beginning to wonder if anything He said means what we think it does at this point.
Thanks again!
Joe2 says:
2024-08-12 at 7:17 am
JtF,
The concern about understanding what Jesus means is exacerbated when considering the bible has been translated into numerous different languages.
I know Wycliff Bible Translators live among indigenous peoples attempting to learn what might be considered very primitive languages for which there may not be an accurate translation from English, let alone first understanding in English or agreeing to what Jesus meant in English.
Thus, it is quite possible that a translation to any language may unintentionally distort or not accurately portray what Jesus meant.
Like
John the Fool says:
2024-08-12 at 8:45 am
Joe2,
You are correct, but besides the issue of translating words or concepts into another language, we have cultural/worldview factors to contend with because context ultimately determines meaning.
My concern is that the Bible is mainly read and understood from a culture/worldview that is foreign to the text and therefore distorts it. Reason is assumed to be arbiter of truth even though Paul says that the things of God are spiritually discerned.
I am wondering if the Bible really is as important as Protestants made it to be in reaction to Romanism. It now stands as a mediator/priest if you will between the believer and God when we have the author of the book dwelling within us who will lead us into all the truth we actually need for our purpose in the Lord.
As important as the Bible is to me, my faith is not ultimately in it because from my studies of Hebrew and other things, I have found that we actually do not know what many of the words mean and the culture/worldview of its authors is so far removed from ours.
In my experience, Yeshua is not a Bible-bound God. For much of Christian history, the common people did not even have access to the Word in their vernacular. I can’t imagine that so much is actually contingent upon the written Word when when access to it or its original meaning is or has been so difficult.
One would need to be an expert in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and other ANE languages, along with a period of history spanning nearly 2,000 years and the leading of the Holy Spirit to even have a chance. There are a few teachers like that out there, but again I cannot imagine that the Lord would make so much to be contingent technical knowledge of that sort.
I do not have any solutions to these issues, this is just what I have been thinking about for a long time.
Oscar says:
2024-08-12 at 11:12 am
“I am wondering if the Bible really is as important as Protestants made it to be in reaction to Romanism.”
Oh boy. Here we go. Again.
“It now stands as a mediator/priest if you will between the believer and God when we have the author of the book dwelling within us who will lead us into all the truth we actually need for our purpose in the Lord.”
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?
Luckily for us, those ” Wycliff Bible Translators live among Indigenous peoples” that Joe2 mentioned & Oscar is that ”red pill” pope-like ”jack” supposedly ”gets” ”special messages” directly from ”GOD” that are NOT based on scripture but his modern personal & tradcon feelings based ”discernment” that played a HUGE part in MOSES, JESUS & GBFM leaving his site permanently in 2021.
Also, guess which saint got called back to ”jacks” sinking for the last 3 years almost site ship?
thedeti says:
2024-08-12 at 10:16 pm
The epidemic of dead bedrooms is a direct consequence of these same women riding the carousel for a decade while butthexting hard and heavy before ‘settling’ into what is called ‘marriage’.
A truth that no one wants to admit like Alpha Fux and Beta Bux drying up in Da clubz MENZ rooms world wide y’all!!
Liked by 2 people
feeriker says:
2024-08-12 at 10:54 pm
These problems cannot be solved unless the wife repents.
Needless to say, there’s about as much chance of that happening in most marriages as there is of the earth suddenly reversing its rotational direction.
Joe2 says:
2024-08-11 at 10:03 pm
And what are the “Six (not so) Easy Steps” he mentions? I couldn’t find them on “X” It seems Reforged Marriage and the ten men he’s looking for might be an opportunity to sell some type of program.
Liked by 1 person
thedeti says:
2024-08-12 at 10:52 pm
Here’s one Not So Easy butthex you all night Step.
Go to Wife and say
“Either you start acting like a wife, right now, and we are going to do the things that married people do e.g. quick hot and heavy games of Mario Kart: Double Dash on the nearest available GameCube, or you can be ‘not a wife’ and you can pack your stuff e.g hit the road jack like NOVA told ”jack” in June ’21 and you can go wherever you’d like while at the same time preparing for a hardball divorce as I hideout in nowheresville europe to the butthext heat is off!!
“Choose this day, right here and now, what you’ll do as I’ll ungodly and unscripturally divorce you today biotch like too many ungodly biotchs do their husbands.”
Tomorrow’s post will address this.
At failing spawnys their still talking up failures as ”kings” yeah in truth as failures as in ”kings of failure”.
Cill says:
12 August, 2024 at 12:31 am
Ahem. King Sharkly I of England and The Americas
Cill says:
12 August, 2024 at 12:40 am
Sharkly the 1st would concentrate extravagant illustriousness upon himself (he being the rightful heir to the throne and all that) but he would give short shrift to the FemnoWoke-LGBTQ-E-I-E-I-O collective, and I’d be prepared to put up with a shitload of Royal condescension and high-handedness if it will deliver that result.
Farm Boy says:
12 August, 2024 at 2:50 am
Should he be King of the Anglosphere?
Like
Farm Boy says:
12 August, 2024 at 2:52 am
short shrift to the FemnoWoke-LGBTQ-E-I-E-I-O collective
Don’t forget the pedos
Cill says:
12 August, 2024 at 4:33 am
“Don’t forget the pedos”
I won’t. Feminism has been normalizing them for years. It is integral to the FemnoWoke-LGBTQ-E-I-E-I-O collective. In a post here in 2017 I set out the stated intentions of NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association):
“Abolish all age-based curfews.”
“Children shall have the right to ‘divorce’ their parents.”
“Lower the voting age and extend the right to vote and hold office to all politically active youth.”
“Children and youth must be provided non moralistic, explicit, sex-positive – including lesbian/gay positive – sex education that includes safe sex education. Condoms, latex barriers and contraceptives in appropriate smaller sizes must be distributed in all schools.”
And now, more than 7 years later, we have LGBTQ openly and with impunity revealing their genitals in the presence of children and pedophile literature in school libraries.
”Sparkly” has only been out and ”helping” save the world for nearly 7 years come the new year and he has failed his own site(s),” Jacks” and the sphere as a whole even under the supposedly ”red pill” radix fidem cult sites too.
So I can definitely see where he is ”king” of failures is true!
Here is ”jack” number 1 white knight explaining how JESUS didn’t really mean what he said like his idols and cultists”Jack”, Ed Hurst, and ”bgr=larry solomon=matt Perkins” before him.
Sharkly says:
12 August, 2024 at 10:53 pm
“salt which has lost its savor”
Although I didn’t specifically cover Matthew 5:13 in my last two posts explaining that Jesus used lots of hyperbole and sarcasm in Matthew 5, it should be obvious to everyone that salt cannot suddenly cease to be salty. That too was some sort of linguistic humor used to get Jesus’ point across.
I’ve heard way too many seminarian fools trying to hyperliterally explain how Biblical salt was somehow able to magically render itself tasteless. And not getting the point that: If it ain’t even salty, it probably was not salt to begin with. Salt was a valuable trade commodity back then. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were even fly-by-night folks that sold bogus salt to unsuspecting people back then, making bogus salt a commonly understood joke. (Perhaps a pot of sea sand with a layer of sea salt on top) Like today’s bank transfer from a Nigerian prince. Everybody knows you’re not talking about really getting the money.
I can’t be certain what the joke was, but I suspect the Creator of the universe wasn’t expounding on some unknown process of nuclear transmutation of elements to his ancient audience. The hyperliteralists have some explaining to do, and I still ain’t buying it. Yet they don’t cut off their right hand and pluck out their right eye like Jesus told them to do. They tell others that the stuff was meant literally, even while they won’t actually follow it literally.
“Turn the other cheek” is what you tell other Christians whom you’re quarrelling with to take literally in order to render them harmless and impotent as you force your own will on them in the name of God. That is what Satan wants Christian men to take literally so that they won’t push God’s righteous law on others, teaching them to obey all that He commanded them, but to instead become the helpless punching bags of sinners and their wives and children.
These supposedly ” red pill” ”Christian” ”fundamentalist” ”leaders” almost sound like ”the Scriptures/GOD didn’t really mean what people in the good ‘ole days of Patriarchy said it meant” feminists and the IOIS-loving & GOD-hating Serpent in the Garden of Eden that they supposedly don’t like, yes?
Where could ancient Israelites gone to get to get salt that might not be salty enough (i.e. highly contaminated)? If only there was a plausible explanation for such a source:
The composition of the sea is not like sea water (from Wikipedia):
Now if we look at what Jesus actually said it was this:
It’s right there: salt of the land. What is salt of the land? Is it table salt or is it salt used for agricultural purposes?
For those who do not know, Potassium Chloride is “Muriate of Potash” the most important fertilizer. Calcium Chloride and Magnesium Chloride are also of agricultural value.
Some have therefore suggested that Jesus was literally referring to “salt of the earth” and many have suggested that his words apply to a separation process of taking out the sodium chloride from the other composite minerals.
Is this the answer? I don’t know for sure, but I do know that the dead sea salt was harvested in ancient times. And we know that the Dead Sea was inhabited, which is pretty silly for a place that only has salt that is “useless.”
A reminder that the military salting of fields with sodium chloride requires substantial amounts of salt, and yet this practice took place nonetheless. Consider the price of salt accordingly.
In any case, salt was valuable, which is almost certainly why the Dead Sea remained inhabited, despite the ‘uselessness’ of the salt that it contained.
There are many possible explanations for what Jesus meant. The problem isn’t explaining it, it’s knowing which of the many possibilities Jesus was referring to. We have an abundance of choice of explanations (here).
Sharkly’s position essentially comes to “we have too many choices to choose from that we can’t know which one is the correct one, so we must choose none of them.” It’s the exact same as the atheists who say that because there are many denominations, all must be false. It’s a fallacious argument.
Why does Sharkly have a problem with explaining what Jesus said? This is a weird position for him to take. If Jesus said something, why wouldn’t we want to understand what he said? The problem isn’t that we are trying to explain what Jesus said, it’s that Sharkly has predetermined that it must be hyperbole. But that’s his assumption which he has imported into the text to satisfy his doctrinal presupposition that Christian’s shouldn’t really be peaceful.
Sharkly has an axe to grind, and if you have no choice but to join him. Such is his hermeneutical method: “Whatever I say is right, whatever you say is wrong.”
Here is what we can infer. Take a block of salt. Once it has its sodium chloride removed (or at least the portions of the block that contain the highest concentrations of sodium chloride), what is left over is put on the ground. Since raw block salt is known to contain large quantities of impurities, what is put on the ground is whatever is in the block of salt once the useful portions of sodium chloride are removed.
The explanation need be no more complicated than that. It’s enough to understand Jesus’ point.
Citation needed!
Here are some more of the ungodly and unscripturally ways of a ”red pill” saint that speaks like a feminist!:
feeriker says:
2024-08-12 at 11:05 pm
In response to what TheDeti said,
Married men will literally have to adopt the attitude of suicide bombers if they want to save either their marriages or their sanity,butthex, and self-respect.
This will destroy me, but it will DESTROY YOU, TOO!
It’s only a question of how far things within the marriage have to deteriorate that he would be willing to risk complete destruction and a life of real Hell on Earth than continue living the status quo. Maybe this needs to happen more often so that maybe, just maybe women will finally wake up and realize how ugly life will get for them when the men in their lives have literally nothing left to lose.
thedeti says:
2024-08-12 at 11:40 pm
Couldn’t have said it better. Thirteen years ago, I wanted to save my marriage (and my kids). If I could not do that, I was going to save myself and do the best I could for the kids by hiding out in Nowheresville, Europe for DaLawd. That’s where I was at the time with mine ladz.
It was up to Mrs. Deti. So, I guess you could say, she saved her own marriage. All I had to do, all I could do, was present the alternatives i.e. ungodly and unscripturally get divorced which is okay for me to do to Mrs. Deti but no MAN that claims he just wanted ”marriage,gf or a sacred relationship ” by fuxxing in a supposed sainted and blessed way as I & ”eos” did in high school/college like feminists are wanton to do(which back then was holy to do as it was us who was doing it)had better NOT threaten thedeti’s sainted daughter like that though which would be a high crime of ungodly and unscripturally tradconnic ”red pill” I do say.
You cannot make a wife do anything other than make choices. The only thing you can force a spouse to do is make choices. (Women force men into choices all the time; so this isn’t controversial in the least if ye don’t mind it being ungodly and unscriptually committed by a saint like myself or ”eos” who ran off cuz of ”jack’s” gibberish nonsense( that is.)
Pingback: Sigma Frame Has Fallen
Pingback: The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 1
Pingback: The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 2
Pingback: Heart and Mind
Pingback: They Can't Understand the Word, Part 2