In Part 2 of our series, we’ll be discussing the second article that Jack @ Sigma Frame wrote about Gnosticism.
Gnosticism
Continuing from the previous post in this series, many different schools of Gnostic thought continued to develop and spread out from the Near East. Specific beliefs regarding cosmology, epistemology, eschatology, etc. are widely varied among them.
As I mentioned in “Gnosticism,” one cannot approach Gnosticism in the same way you would approach other religions, expecting there to be denominations that differ only in theology. The categories of things that unify Christianity, for example, are precisely those things that vary considerably among Gnostics. Gnostic syncretism meant that there would be a wide variety of beliefs and practices, as Britannica confirms. So what did the Gnostics share in common?
However, they all share a few characteristics in common.
- The Gnostic approach to reason and philosophy is fundamentally Platonic at heart.
- The emphasis of Gnostic philosophy is on aping mysticism without actually arriving there.
- The goal of realizing an ideal human condition, either by avoiding what is evil, or by returning to, or connecting with, an immutable or preeminent source of good.
The perception and taxonomy of patterns figures largely in Gnostic thought. Within the more advanced Gnostic philosophies, this culminates in complex theoretical systems intended to explain, harness, and/or predict relationships between various metaphysical phenomena.
Well, whatever they share in common, it isn’t this. Here is what ChatGPT says are the core principles of Gnosticism, providing primary sources to support each claim:
- Dualistic Cosmology (The Apocryphon of John)
- The “Divine Spark” within individuals (The Gospel of Thomas)
- Salvation through mystical gnosis (The Gospel of Truth)
- Critique—typically rejection—of the material world (The Hypostasis of the Archons)
- Divine intermediaries (Pistis Sophia)
- Symbolic mythical narratives (The Sophia of Jesus Christ)
- Rejection of orthodox authority (The Gospel of Judas)
Do other sources made by actual humans agree? Wikipedia certainly agrees.
Catholic Culture says that it was primarily a product of syncretism between Persian dualism, Babylonian astrology, Syrian sun-god worship, Greek philosophy, Egyptian mystery cults, and the text of Judaism (through a negative repudiation of traditional Judaism).
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that the fundamental element is “anti-cosmic world rejection” (often called dualism) and states this about the Gnostic intuitive approach:
While the receptive hermeneutical method implies that we have something to learn from a text, the method employed by the Gnostics, which we may call the “revelatory” method, was founded upon the idea that they (the Gnostics) had received a supra-cosmic revelation, either in the form of a “call,” or a vision, or even, perhaps, through the exercise of philosophical dialectic. This “revelation” was the knowledge (gnôsis) that humankind is alien to this realm, and possesses a “home on high” within the plêrôma, the “Fullness,” where all the rational desires of the human mind come to full and perfect fruition.
…
The Gnostic vision of the world was based upon the intuition of a radical and seemingly irreparable rupture between the realm of experience (pathos) and the realm of true Being—that is, existence in its positive, creative, or authentic aspect.
The problem faced by the Gnostics was how to explain such a radical, pre-philosophical intuition. This intuition is “pre-philosophical” because the brute experience of existing in a world that is alien to humankind’s aspirations may submit itself to a variety of interpretations. And the attempt at an interpretation may take on the form of either muthos or logos—either a merely descriptive rendering of the experience, or a rationally ordered account of such an experience, including an explanation of its origins.
It should go without saying that supra-cosmic revelation and visions are mystical and not, by definition, cerebral. They are “alien to this realm.” In particular, the Gnostics viewed the realm of human experience as separate from True Being.
Gnosticism is Platonic in a sense, but Platonism wasn’t mythological or esoteric. Of course Jack would say that Gnosticism wasn’t “real” mysticism, since he’s offering something he views as different, but as we’ve seen in Part 1, the Gnostic mysticism was real. Nor was there a Gnostic spiritual goal to realize the ideal material human condition by avoiding evil (e.g. the hedonistic Gnostics).
I could not substantiate any of Jack’s (and Ed Hurst’s of Radix Fidem, who contributed to the post) claims. Since Jack does not cite his claims, it’s hard to keep from concluding that he’s just making it all up as he goes along.
After this claim, Jack goes on to discuss Judaism in ways that have little to do with Gnosticism. Throughout his series so far, Jack seems much more concerned with historical Judaism than with actual historical Gnosticism.
Now, let’s skip ahead to the next interesting part.
So just how is Gnosticism different from faith-based mysticism?
Yes, let’s do that.
Gnosticism, therefore, is a religion, loosely defined according to its intent of helping one apprehend the deeper patterns of life that are beyond the intellect, but it is not a religion in terms of having an organized ecclesiology, ecclesiastical polity, and liturgy.
I understand that this is a “loose” definition, but this is quite a curious thing to say. If the Gnostics were characterized by intuition—pattern recognition powered by the mind—then Gnosticism is objectively not beyond the intellect. What Jack is saying here contradicts what he claimed earlier.
This raises all sorts of red flags and alarm bells. If you are brave enough, let’s see how Jack defines mysticism:
Classical mysticism is very hard to describe and quantify precisely because it deals with things that exceed the limits of the intellect, and thus, verbal communication. The next best proxy that we can apprehend for the sake of discussion is religion, as it is the vehicle that is intended to bring us closer to having a mystical encounter with God.
It seems that Jack really struggles to actually define mysticism.
These things give rise to our understanding of the word “faith” as a separate faculty for grasping those metaphysical realities and spiritual truths that the intellect cannot handle. It addresses the part of you that “knows” God and His Person, and it is the root of how you get used to how He does things. Thus, religion, correctly understood, is a body of knowledge that is supposed to enhance one’s mystical experience and strengthen one’s faith.
…
Genuine mysticism awakens a faculty God put in us by design — faith. Gnosticism and Western Esotericism are counterfeit forms of mysticism that substitute intuition for genuine mysticism. It is counterfeit because although it may arouse some degree of faith, it is not the kind of faith that leads to the knowledge of God, but instead foments a reliance on the self apart from God.
Take the time to appreciate how precious little Jack is actually saying here. After reading this, do you know what mysticism is? Do you know what faith is? What is religion? Do you know how to identify the counterfeit versions of each?
It’s a word salad.
What is this metaphysical part of you that knows God? Who knows, Jack can’t identify it. It’s a separate facility, but he can’t say what the facility is. How does it work? What does it do? Who knows!
So let’s look at a proxy: religion. Religion is supposed to help one be mystical and build faith, but precisely how that is supposed to happen he doesn’t say. Religion is supposed to help with the ineffable truth of spiritual things, and that’s supposedly what faith is: the facility for understanding things that the intellect cannot handle. Well, that’s interesting, because that’s not at all what the Bible teaches about faith. In this, Jack joins another Radix Fidem member—Catacomb Resident—in redefining the word faith. Here is a reminder:
Sorry class, that definition of faith is certainly not mysticism. And it is a faith that involves the intellect, which is really weird because while Jack can’t tell you what mysticism is, he knows, somehow, that it isn’t intellectual:
A lot of the “mysticism” contained in Gnosticism and Western Esotericism is just a mixture of highly varied talent with intuition, some logically valid and some just wild speculation. But from the perspective of someone who has only their intellect, and no real faith, it all seems to be the same thing as genuine mysticism.
So, according to Jack, a purely intellectual approach is so indistinguishable from the genuine article, that a person with no faith can’t actually tell the difference! I suppose we can know when a person has no faith by their lack of genuine mystical experiences. Welcome to Tautology Club, Jack.
Mysticism
I’m going to do you readers a favor by defining mysticism. It’s not actually that hard.
Mysticism is the direct apprehension of knowledge from a spiritual source.
In Christianity, mysticism is known as divine revelation. God—through the Holy Spirit—gives direct knowledge into the mind of a person. It is external in origin, and may or may not involve the five senses. For example, God may provide visions, speak audible words, send messengers in physical form, or bypass the senses entirely and simply deposit understanding into your mind’s awareness. In Christianity, mysticism does not require any rituals and you can’t do anything to facilitate it. God even reveals himself directly to non-Christians (which often results in their conversion). The cause of true revelation is the divine will, not the will of the person actively seeking divine understanding.
By contrast, all other forms of mysticism involve approaches and methods, or what Jack would call a facility. The focus is internal, often focused on the will of the individual seeking the mystical experience. For example, Eastern meditation involves actively emptying your mind to make it susceptible to ‘divine’ influence. In the Western world, the New Age and Contemplative movements involve utilizing and performing various “spiritual disciplines” designed to increase one’s mystical experiences.
Both Christian Mysticism and other forms of mysticism actually result in receipt of knowledge from spiritual sources. They are both the genuine article. But, and this is critical, only the Christian mysticism results in knowledge that comes from God. This is why scripture condemns all mystical practices and why the mystical “spiritual disciplines” are largely non-biblical.
Furthermore, unlike Jack’s example of the person without faith who cannot distinguish between genuine and pretend mysticism, scripture actually describes how you can “Test the Spirits” in order to tell what is not genuine, and it provides instruction on how to perform further validations on the knowledge received. And, surprise, it isn’t what Jack is describing! In fact, Jack’s sect—Radix Fidem—has not only denied the validity of scripture’s instructions, but it has failed the test of the spirits.
There is nothing mysterious or unclear about Christian mysticism. It doesn’t require some explainable faith, nor does it require throwing off one’s intellect.
Further Reading
- Karen L. King, “What is Gnosticism?“
- Bentley Layton, “The Gnostic Scriptures“
- Hans Jonas, “The Gnostic Religion“
- Kurt Rudolph, “Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism“
- Michael Williams – “Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category“
- Birger A. Pearson – “Gnosticism as a Religion“
In Christianity, mysticism does not require any rituals and you can’t do anything to facilitate it. God even reveals himself directly to non-Christians (which often results in their conversion). The cause of true revelation is the divine will, not the will of the person actively seeking divine understanding.
YES!
Which is partially(the main part being that his ”friends” are the ones that brought in the ”
You must know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin to understand my ”RP Genius Leader” doctrine I just discovered after I failed to keep the Commands of God here ”{
He must rule his own household well, keeping his children under control, with true dignity, commanding their respect in every way and keeping them respectful.-1 Timothy 3:4-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
}-After my wife divorced me-which prepared=trained me to be your overseer” doctrine -which is why Scott’s=EOS comment about you from two years ago is still so strange to me now(even like ”RP® Genius” False Teacher®” Jack put him up to it ):
When I think about non-Christians who may be inclined toward a life of faith, it occurs to me that they must entirely turned off by the amount of mental energy it takes to parse ancient Greek and Aramaic words in order to join the club.
His friends like Jack and Sharkly thought that Scripture wasn’t enough to be a Christian in the ”Christian manosphere” and certainly NOT enough to understand their ”fornication is/can be sanctifying”,” game is evil yet approved by God”,” Women are not made in God’s image” and Jack’s and Sparkly’s(if you’re being spelling-correct according to numerous spelling apps) FAVE ”Women need BDSM-even though it wasn’t fully formulated initial-wise until ’91 (”The initialism BDSM is first recorded in a Usenet® post from 1991”)-its of ancient Biblical origin in Greek or Aramaic-your choice of which😉 or so sayeth us ”RP® Genius” False Teachers®”who are bought and sold by George Soros® like our beloved Republicans® and Democrats® ” doctrines.
Here’s one of the dudes that ”RP® Genius” False Teachers®” doctrines have screwed up in the head(like they do to themselves)
thedeti says:
11 February, 2025 at 2:47 pm
Valentine’s Day, i.e. Steak and a tickle his pickle day, is coming up.
Ladies: Don’t buy your man anything. Cook him dinner and tickle his pickle as the ”RP® Genius” False Teachers® commend and command.
Just the fact that this has to be suggested to you is problematic. Why does a guy you don’t know have to tell you what your man wants, what every man wants? Why don’t you know this? And why does anyone have to suggest this to you? Why don’t you want to do this? Why aren’t you doing this at least twice a week, more often if you’ve been together less than 5 years?
Notice this disciple of the ”RP® Genius” False Teachers® speaks nothing of God’s command only of ”RP Genius Leaders®” false modern Soros-inspired teachings of the Bible:
so that they may train the young women to be lovers of their husbands, loving their children,Titus 2:4-Berean Literal Bible
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands [subordinate, not as inferior, but out of respect for the responsibilities entrusted to husbands and their accountability to God, and so partnering with them] so that even if some do not obey the word [of God], they may be won over [to Christ] without discussion by the godly lives of their wives,-1 Peter 3:1-Amplified Bible (AMP)
i guess that has to be in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin to understand what the George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®” false teachings of the Bible want you to believe.
More on how the George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®” false teachings of the Bible have screwed up the sphere, marriage, and Western civilization from a disciple of it that has just decided to join the forces of good here at Derek’s!:
thedeti says:
11 February, 2025 at 3:30 pm
As for the present day gals, what might they be like?
The most defining trend change among women I’ve seen from GenX women who I dated and fucked and one of whom I married; and millennials on down to Zoomers (my kids) and GenAlpha, is the entitlement, self centeredness, and apathy. They’ve reached pathological levels now. Society turned “feminine brain” up to 11 and ripped the knob off.
In the 1980s, most women at least understood if they wanted a man they’d have to give him something. They understood basic exchange: “If I want something from him, I have to give him something.” Usually, he didn’t have to explain what he wanted or that he wanted something. She understood what he wanted: sex and respect. And she understood she’d have to give him at least some components of those things in ever-increasing proportions if she wanted anything from him (attention, time, exclusivity). She understood “If I give him some things, maybe he will give me some things. But if I give him nothing, I will also get nothing from him.”
But women also valued men. Women liked men. Women (mostly) respected men, even if that respect was simply a basic understanding that all men had more brute strength than they did and that men were human beings like them. Most men started at a baseline of “he’s OK” unless he established he was an asshole. Women also needed men. Most women wanted marriage and children. They instinctively understood if they wanted marriage and kids, they needed husbands. So they would make the necessary accommodations and compromises,
The changes I’ve seen are that women could get more and more from men while giving men less and less. It really did boil down to two things: (1) women holding sex hostage, and weaponizing sex; and (2) women’s increased economic freedom, which led to women’s increased sexual freedom. These two things meant women had increased bargaining power vis a vis men. And because men want sex, and women know it, women started “charging more” to the bottom 80% for sex. And up to now, those men paid it. But they had even less power vis a vis Chadrone; so they were forced to charge Chadrone less for sex.
These events have led to our entire society devaluing, disliking, and disrespecting men. Our society hates and disrespects men in general now. Men are viewed as evil, ugly, nasty, perverted, violent predators mainly because of George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®” false teachers. Our society has even more hate and disrespect for men who put up with increasing amounts of cowardly $#icken$#itted ”RP” feministic/effeminate ”fitness test” bull$#it just for a chance at some crumbs and table scraps of the ol’ tickle pickle routine. As MOSES, JESUS, and GBFM have often said, it remains to be seen just how much more of this REAL MEN will take from the George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®” false teachers of the Bible as the Jackian/Sparklian ”RP” has been on its last leg ever since MOD & Derek left SF.
Women like all George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®” false teachers being who they are, they’ve massively overplayed their hands and abused their newfound social, sexual, and economic power. They’ve fuxxed it up so badly that we had to put in charge an actual adult with more than two functioning brain cells and with some real-world experience, logic, and who can articulate a complete coherent thought in 50 words or less instead of a typical Jackian-word salad, in the hopes of at least slowing the speeding train before it crashes headlong into the wall.
And that’s where we are now with the fool George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®” false teachings of the Bible destroying countless MEN, boys, and women’s lives with nary a word to your mother even.FFS
thedeti says:
11 February, 2025 at 3:33 pm
Re Steak and a tickle his pickle Day:
See, women know this is what men want. They KNOW.
It’s just that they don’t want to give this to their men because of lack of attraction or they’re pissed off or whatever else.
It’s just that they think they shouldn’t have to give this to their men, because they don’t think they should have to give their men anything in exchange for the things their men do and are. They believe they’re just entitled to those things simply because they’re women, or married women.
I was thinking of going to SF today
No. Fux that cowardly anti-God ”RP” false teachings bull$#it there lads.
I’m going where REAL MEN congregate, fix problems(& generally get it done), and discuss the BIG and oh-so-save things in life!!!
That’s right DUDES! I’m going to Derek’s!
P.S. I’m NOT banned there that was just to try to get sympathy and mob support lads.
How dare you! Deti is right 99% of the time! And he didn’t get that way overnight. He’s been around for over 15 years, so show some respect!
(Ahem…)
Hi Derek. Long time reader here. I feel I ought to say something in defense of spiritual men like Bruce Charlton, Ed Hurst and Sigma Frame Jack as the distinction they make between what they profess and Gnosticism is very clear to me but it may not be clear to your logical way of thinking. I want to offer comment to see if I can help to bridge that gap if possible.
Your arguments are eminently rational and intellectually well made. However, in spiritual terms, they fail precipitously. They are completely persuasive until the very last moment when the end of intellect and reason is reached after which they disappear into the gap of what I call intranscendescence, or where intellect and reason are insufficient to accurately and comprehensively describe the spiritual work of the living God. John’s gospel describes this well. St. Paul also describes this but in much simpler ways.
I’ve read enough of Bruce Charlton, Ed Hurst and Sigma Frame Jack to know without doubt that they are laboring to explain in rational intellectual terms the transcendent quality of the very Spirit of God, which they and many Christians who have attained a spirit-mind recognise personally and passionately. No doubt such people existed through the ages but have been hitherto silenced, cornered and corralled by the church into convenient this or that ‘heresies’ by Western churchian scaffolding that seeks to chip away all the spiritual mortar of the early church. This leaves behind a crumbling ruin that is only held up by theological scaffolding. Almost all of the lecturers and students I encountered at Bible College were students of the scaffold. Most has never encountered the Spirit of the living God. Baptism by water but not by the Holy Spirit. The Western Church is spiritually impoverished as a result of this propping up.
To the spirit-minded, the three men I’ve named are approximating spiritual truth to varying degrees. Men can only ever approximate the truth and so our words will always come with a degree of ‘unknowingness’ or mysticism about the transcendental being of the Spirit of God. The Apostle Paul had a ‘mystical’ moment on the road to Damascus. He had no rational intellectual way of describing what happened to him, so he didn’t try. He simply described it as an act of God’s mercy and grace (Gal 1:15-16, 1 Tim 1:13-14). This is the challenge facing anyone who seeks to explain what it means to transcend the rational and encounter the spiritual. Words are inadequate.
We all seek this level of understanding but are powerless to reach it on our own. Only the Spirit of God has the power to take us there. The spirit-minded Paul found what the intellectual rationalist-minded Saul could not. It could be that the head-scratching wall of incomprehension you often describe in your critiques is in this vicinity. It isn’t hidden or secret knowledge but something that an individual seeker may not yet have encountered in his spiritual journey.
Because this leaves open the risk of falling into Gnosticism or other heresy, modern orthodox theologians confine the work of the Spirit of God to the eminently rational and intellectually knowable Ministry of the Spirit given to Paul which empowered his missionary journeys. The entire spiritual action can then be confined to Acts 1:8 and leave no room for any risk of Gnosticism or other similar heresy.
This theologically-scaffolded Spirit is one that the rational intellectual Western mind can easily understand: go into the nations, do good works and preach the gospel. This is where the Western Church has been for 500 years. Eminently rational, but confined to colonialism, churchianism and gospel preaching. John Stott the Anglican theologian and scholar once observed that for centuries Western Christians had gone into the nations preaching a God they didn’t understand and acting in ways that were contrary to His commands. It’s hard to argue with that and easy for the spirit-mind to see why: it is a consequence of a spiritually impoverished church.
The Western Church is like that everywhere today, or replaced by an overly-spiritual and feminized feel-good emotive collectivism. The crumbling ruin is held together in an ever-more complex theological framework of insistent and persistent rational-intellectual incomprehension. Every new PhD thesis produces another piece. A mind steeped in this scaffolded way of thinking regards it as imperative to rationalize everything about the Spirit of God along its carefully laid scholastic framework where citation is mistaken as argument, facts are mistaken as truth and knowledge is mistaken as wisdom. This is the legacy of 500 years of Enlightenment thinking and it’s high time it went away.
The church is full of nevertheless genuine and devout Christians who are rationally minded students of the scaffold. The beliefs of these brethren are important. But there are just as many who are spiritually minded and who understand, appreciate and are inspired by what Bruce Charlton, Ed Hurst and Sigma Frame Jack are writing about. The challenge is to use the very limited medium of human language to convey something that transcends language. It can be done and must be done and I am very thankful to all men, like yourself and these others, who are committed to this mission of understanding. It’s an important task for the Western Church in which the Spirit of God is being quenched by intellectual rationalism. The transcendental personal encounter with God’s mercy and grace and the subsequent transformation of the rational mind into the spirit mind is what we all seek, but of course not all will find it. The question is, will it be found with the hammer and chisel of intellect and reason that chips away all the spiritual mortar we find, or will be a product of embracing a living spiritual reality with the transcendant?
Jack,
Welcome! I really appreciate your lengthy comment. It is well thought out, contains no ad hominem, and states your views clearly. Your approach is rare and much appreciated, even if we disagree on some points. If you take nothing else out of my response—especially if you don’t respond at all—I hope you will take that much.
Long time reader here.
What? Nobody reads what I write. Way too long. 😉
“…men like Bruce Charlton, Ed Hurst and Sigma Frame Jack as the distinction they make between what they profess and Gnosticism is very clear to m…”
To be clear, Charlton said he agreed with me regarding Gnosticism. And I agreed with what he wrote about Gnosticism in 2023.
“However, in spiritual terms, they fail precipitously. They are completely persuasive until the very last moment when the end of intellect and reason is reached after which they disappear into the gap of what I call intranscendescence, or where intellect and reason are insufficient to accurately and comprehensively describe the spiritual work of the living God.”
You presume a little too much.
Take a moment to consider the limitations of the intellect and reason—which you just asserted—and you’ll quickly realize that what I can express with my intellect in reason is not—and cannot be—the full measure of what I believe and know to be true.
In fact, I used to call myself a Christian mystic—before I abandoned that term for Christian discernment and revelation—because I am not a cessasionist. I do not object to mystical and spiritual experiences on their own, but rather such experience that are contradicted by the Word of God. Truth must be both intellectually valid and sourced from God (as opposed to some other supernatural source).
“…they are laboring to explain in rational intellectual terms the transcendent quality of the very Spirit of God”
But I am doing the same! Do you not realize this? If anything, I am criticizing my own kind.
“many Christians who have attained a spirit-mind recognise personally and passionately”
But I claim this personally. My biggest frustration, and which with none of the men have been able to adequately explain, is that my own personal spirit-minded “passion” is subjectively different from theirs. The difference is that mine is primarily grounded—above all other concerns—in the Word of God and theirs is not. Otherwise, they are identical approaches.
You’ve assumed they are different because you’ve assumed that I’ve rejected mystical experience because it is mystical experience, when in reality I’ve rejected mystical experience that does not come from God. The failure to recognize that not all mystical experiences are valid—because, among other things, they are not self-authenticating—is the metaphysical fatal flaw in mysticism.
“The Western Church is spiritually impoverished as a result of this propping up.”
Well, and for a lot of other reasons too long to recount here.
“The Apostle Paul had a ‘mystical’ moment on the road to Damascus.”
Yes
“He had no rational intellectual way of describing what happened to him, so he didn’t try.”
That’s a curious thing for you to say, considering that Paul discussed his experience in multiple times. His experience is described in Acts 9, Acts 22, Acts 26, Galatians 1, 1 Corinthians 9, 1 Corinthians 15, and (by allusion) 1 Timothy 1. He described his experience with Jesus without even a hint of irrationality or non-rationality.
“[In Gal 1:15-16 and 1 Tim 1:13-14] He simply described it as an act of God’s mercy and grace”
Sure, but I wouldn’t describe this as not being a “rational intellectual way of describing what happened to him.” You do know that I’ve discussed divine revelation by Jesus on this blog on a number of occasions, right? If I were purely rational and intellectual, how could I do this?
“This is the challenge facing anyone who seeks to explain what it means to transcend the rational and encounter the spiritual. Words are inadequate.”
Paul never once said that his experience transcended the rational. You’ve added that part in. Neither Paul nor Jesus taught a transcendance of the rational, but indeed taught the opposite. The spirit and the mind cannot be separated, for scripture itself teaches that they are one thing.
The belief that the spirit and mind are separate is a decidedly Greek conception. As soon as you eliminate the Greek presumption, the difficulty you are facing disappears.
As for words being inadequate, I do not find Paul’s description of his experience to be inadequate so why do you? Nor do I find it all that difficult to discuss the spiritual reality, even with my young children. All these problems you are assigning to divine revelation are things that you have brought to the conversation, limitations that you have brought to bear on it.
“Only the Spirit of God has the power to take us there.”
That is my belief also. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no man that is good, not one. Jesus stands at the door and knocks: whoever hears, listens, and opens the door, Jesus will come in. Jesus must be knocking for us to choose to go there!
“The spirit-minded Paul found what the intellectual rationalist-minded Saul could not.”
Paul was a spiritual-minded individual before his conversion and was even more clearly a rationalist-minded individual afterwards. His words make this plain enough. This is why some anti-intellect mystics focus solely on Jesus and treat Paul as secondary.
“It could be that the head-scratching wall of incomprehension you often describe in your critiques is in this vicinity.”
I have policies that I follow on this blog. The “head-scratching” is often me being polite and avoiding ad hominem—including presuming motivations—not being actually confused. It’s a type of figure-of-speech.
Also, all contradictions and fallacies are inherently confusing (or bewildering; perplexing) by their very nature. If they are properly understood, they can’t be anything else. Such is the case here with the discussion on Gnosticism.
“It isn’t hidden or secret knowledge but something that an individual seeker may not yet have encountered in his spiritual journey.”
Isn’t it?
The spiritual truths that I reveal and that are revealed to me in Christ are also found in scripture. They were once hidden, but now they have been revealed, just as Paul said they were.
By contrast Gnosticism and other forms of non-Christian mysticism purport to be revealing that which isn’t and hasn’t already been revealed.
This is one of the ways you can test whether divine revelation is from God or not: whether or not the revelation is revealing something new, especially if that new thing is different from what has already been revealed.
Charlton, for example, rightly understands that if the Mormon cosmology is true, then the ancient scriptures cannot be the inspired and infallible Word of God, but are mere approximations and the like.
“Because this leaves open the risk of falling into Gnosticism or other heresy, modern orthodox theologians confine the work of the Spirit of God to the eminently rational and intellectually knowable Ministry of the Spirit given to Paul which empowered his missionary journeys.”
Speaking of Gnosticism, do you even know what Gnosticism is? If you, like Jack @ Sigma Frame, cannot even correctly explain what Gnosticism is, how can you avoid it? As I’ve laid out on this blog, Sigma Frame shares much (but not everything) in common with actual Gnosticism.
Now, I can’t speak for modern orthodox theologians, I can only speak for myself as someone who rejects cessasionism. But, there is no reason to restrict what is knowable to what is purely rational and intellectual. However, there is also no reason to restrict what is knowable to what is purely spiritual. I think you’ll find that these dual points explain both orthodoxy and the mystical approaches that I critique.
“The Western Church is like that everywhere today, or replaced by an overly-spiritual and feminized feel-good emotive collectivism. The crumbling ruin is held together in an ever-more complex theological framework of insistent and persistent rational-intellectual incomprehension.”
Ironically, you have nailed it: persistent rational-intellectual incomprehension. The modern church is far, far away from being rational and intellectual. It does not comprehend, indeed rejects, the rational. The modern church is, in many places, thoroughly mystical and spiritual.
“Every new PhD thesis produces another piece.”
The quality of those productions is often poor and routinely does not meet rigorous intellectual standards. These days plagiarism is a major problem too.
“…this scaffolded way of thinking regards it as imperative to rationalize everything about the Spirit of God along its carefully laid scholastic framework where citation is mistaken as argument, facts are mistaken as truth and knowledge is mistaken as wisdom”
What churches and denominations are you attending where the sermons are rational and scholarly? Find some example sermon streams and share them here and we’ll take a look. I’ve shared at least one example here which refutes what you are suggesting, so perhaps you too can substantiate your otherwise empty claim with some evidence of your own?
“The church is full of nevertheless genuine and devout Christians who are rationally minded students of the scaffold. The beliefs of these brethren are important.”
If you read the writings of various Christian mystics, they often speak with disdain about these kinds of Christians, as if what they experience is an inferior and lesser brand of Christianity. Barely Christian at all. They require spiritual experiences—works—to open access to spiritual knowledge. Sounds like Gnosticism, wouldn’t you agree?
“But there are just as many who are spiritually minded and who understand, appreciate and are inspired by what Bruce Charlton, Ed Hurst and Sigma Frame Jack are writing about.”
Can you identify who the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 is? Who or what is the restrainer? This is actually quite important, as the apostles spent a lot of time warning people that deceivers would come and that they would come from within the leadership of the church, and many in the early church wrote about this. Can you spiritually discern what is good and what is bad? Do you know how to do this?
Being inspired by people who are themselves deceived is worthy of no merit. So you have to be able to tell if your inspiriation is valid. How do you do this and by what standard do you judge?
“The challenge is to use the very limited medium of human language to convey something that transcends language.”
Again, you talk of transcendence, but this was not taught by Jesus or anyone else in the Old or New Testaments. There are a number of Greek words that imply transcendence. The word akataleptos refers to what is incomprehensible and beyond grasp, but it isn’t used in the New Testament. The word hyperkeimai refers to being above, beyond, or transcending, but it too isn’t used in the New Testament.
As I’ve pointed out on many occasions, when God has communicated with mankind, he used words. Even the non-verbal visions (e.g. Genesis 28:10–19) were accompanied by spoken words.
If you’d like, we can go over every example of divine revelation described in scripture, and measure which involved words and which did not. In the Old Testament, I count 20+ examples that contain words and ~3 that do not (two are theophanies and another includes words, but not from God). In the New Testament there are 20+ (excluding Revelation for obvious reasons) and 2 that do not. We could explain what, if any, mystical truths (if any) were revealed by the very few non-verbal revelations and whether or not they can be understood in terms of language.
Once we’ve done that, we can weigh it against Jesus’ statement that we will be judged by our words. Language may be limited, but it is more than sufficient for the task for which it is needed.
“It’s an important task for the Western Church in which the Spirit of God is being quenched by intellectual rationalism.”
Are you talking about liberal churches like the ELCA or the Presbyterian USA church? Or perhaps you are writing from a different geographical location? Because, in my experience with a number of denominations, I have yet to find a single one that is intellectual, let alone guilty of rationalism. Not a single one.
“…the subsequent transformation of the rational mind into the spirit mind…”
This is Hellenistic gibberish. This Western-style categorization (i.e. rational mind vs spirit mind) was alien to the Ancient Near Eastern Hebrews. If you want to try to pass off pagan philosophy as Christian, you’re going to have to substantiate those claims (e.g. with the Word of God).
” The question is, will it be found with the hammer and chisel of intellect and reason that chips away all the spiritual mortar we find, or will be a product of embracing a living spiritual reality with the transcendant?”
Do you know what Gnosticism is? Do you know that it taught personal transcendence and that the New Testament writers did not?
Peace,
DR
Thanks for taking the time to respond to what I wrote. Your thoughtful response has given me plenty of food for thought. I want to contemplate what it means in relation to my own thoughts before commenting further. I may or may not do that depending on the time available. That doesn’t mean I agree or disagree, or have changed my mind on anything, or have been silenced by superior reasoning, or most importantly, that my appreciation for your time and consideration of my comments are any less. It just means I’m apportioning my time and thoughts according to the range of tasks currently before me and taking the opportunity to examine my positions further on this very interesting topic.
For now, I’ll just clarify that when I say ‘words are inadequate’ I primarily mean my own words. I don’t have the words to explain what know to be true in a way that can be understood by others. It takes time and never quite nails it. This is why I read blogs and don’t write them. Hopefully I’ll be able to respond further soon.
Jack,
All that is perfectly fine. Here is a paraphrase of what I wrote to another commenter:
There is no need to apologize for any delay, nor are you obligated to respond to each and every question I’ve raised. I don’t believe that I have ever criticized anyone for taking too long to respond, as that would be an ad hominem. You can take your time—be it days, weeks, months, or even years.
I also don’t mind if you pick-and-choose which points to respond to, if any.
Peace,
DR
Take a moment to consider the limitations of the intellect and reason—which you just asserted—and you’ll quickly realize that what I can express with my intellect in reason is not—and cannot be—the full measure of what I believe and know to be true.
In fact, I used to call myself a Christian mystic—before I abandoned that term for Christian discernment and revelation—because I am not a cessasionist. I do not object to mystical and spiritual experiences on their own, but rather such experience that are contradicted by the Word of God. Truth must be both intellectually valid and sourced from God (as opposed to some other supernatural source).
Yes.
The main problem with SF Jack is he tries to ”clean” the dirtiness of the flesh and the world by claiming it’s somehow God’s will or Spiritual.
This is why i have asserted SF & his main buddy Sharkly’s sites became cursed to fail after Jack did his famous ””Christian”-porn is instructive for learning Headship”post ”Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10” from 2021-09-20…
(which he did mainly to try to foolishly recapture the success he lost when Novaseeker and GBFM left him that July)
…the only things keeping his site…
(Sharkly’s site has been near dead for almost 3 and a half years since i left it its mainly just a testament to his hubris)alive after that was MOD, Derek, Liz, Elspeth, and thedeti(the first four are gone now and the fifth mostly is)
…and Jack and his pet fool Sharkly starting to attack GBFM…
(they were mainly scared they would be outed as bgr=mattperkins chatbot accomplices in his trolling research)
…first through ”George” Soros commenter sockpuppet then as they thought was ”Christian” through their own chatbot selves sockpuppets of bgr=mattperkins.
”They” thought GBFM was a ”runaway”member of their failing latter day ”RP” cults and then they were shocked and womanly startled that he had always been an independent non-cultic member of the sphere to show how non-logical,non-disernening, and unspiritual they truly are as TRUE® ever-failing George Sorosian ”RP Genius Leaders®”