ECT God Doesn't Speak Into the Dialectic Mind

[northwye]

God Doesn't Speak Into the Dialectic Mind

Dean Gotcher says "God cannot speak into the pre-flood, Tower of
Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, dialectic mind..."

Luke 17: 26-30 says "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29. But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Gotcher teaches that "The dialectic is man thinking through his
feelings. This is the reason God flooded the world and will judge the
world again. "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also
in the days of the Son of man." (Luke 17:26) Paul had it correct when
he said "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4) The
dialectic paradigm rejects the word of God as the final authority. It
turns to fables and the opinions of men. You do not dialogue truth,
you teach truth, you dialogue compromise."

Gotcher is saying that Luke 17: 26 shows that in the last time
people will have
a mentality, a set of personality traits, a world view, and a carnal
or reprobate mind which is like that which existed in the days of
Noah. Dean Gotcher calls this mind the Pre-Flood, Tower of Babel,
Sodom and Gomarrah, dialectic mind.

He goes on to say "The key to dialectic thinking is the right to
question, mock, and
ridicule the traditional, didactic, patriarch authority paradigm. The
facilitator's agenda is to create and sustain such an environment. The
very right to question the role of traditional authority has an effect
on all participating in such surroundings. All but the strongest in
faith are drawn by "the feeling of group belongingness" to trust and
follow the facilitator. All who surrender to the "group feel" will
harass those who question the facilitator's "authority." Persecution
is being harassed for holding to a position. The experience can be
quite heated."

To learn to identify the use of the dialectic in dialogue. you need
verbatim records of conversations illustrating its use. When one
person presents an opinion, idea or piece of information, this is the
"thesis." Another person may want to change that other person's
position. This is then the second person's "antithesis" to the
"thesis," an "anti-thesis." The didactic is different from dialogue, and usually the dialectic is used within a dialogue.

In the present day political opposition between the Marxist Democratic Party and the followers of the contemporary Patriot-Populist and Alternative Media Movement the dialectic is used constantly.

But - Marx is said to have "turned Hegel Upside Down," meaning that Hegel, the German philosopher, was an Idealist, and not an Atheist. Marx was an Atheist, and so in turning Hegel "Upside Down" or turning Hegel "On His Head," Marx meant that the Marxist form of the dialectic was to be carried out without any concern for common morality. In the Marxist form of the dialectic, it is OK to tell lies and make personal verbal attacks upon your opponent.

The contemporary American Democratic Party can be seen as making an argument that is in opposition to that which is traditional in American Political Ideology. The traditional American Political Ideology is the Thesis and the opposition to the traditional American Political Ideology is the Anti-Thesis in the dialectic.

For example, Historian Quentin Skinner in The Foundations of Modern Political
Thought, 1978, goes over the influence of several Scotch
and English Christians, such as John Knox and Samuel Rutherford, on John
Locke and the late 18th century American political ideology behind the creation of the Constitutional Republic.

John Locke's book, Two Treatises of Government, according to Skinner, influenced Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and had an influence on James Madison and other Founding Fathers.

Isaiah 10: 1-2: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless."

The ideas of John Knox and Samuel Rutherford of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland were secularized by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson made them into the Declaration of Independence, one of our founding documents which does briefly state a political ideology.

Likewise dispensationalism is a man made theology in opposition to the Theology of the Reformation, which restored the doctrine of Jesus Christ that justification is by faith. The theology which restored the doctrine of justification by faith is found more in the commentaries by John Calvin than in the later more systematic Five Point Calvinism of his successors.

And so dispensationalism is a man made theology which makes arguments against Reformation Theology by use of the dialectic, sometimes using the Marxist Version. While Reformation Theology, called Replacement Theology, is the Thesis, the Anti-thesis opposes that Reformation Theology. And part of the problem with dispenationalism is that it claims to teach justification by faith, but it weakens that spiritual power of the Born Again Believer in its opposition to some New Testament Scriptures.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Likewise dispensationalism is a man made theology in opposition to the Theology of the Reformation, which restored the doctrine of Jesus Christ that justification is by faith. The theology which restored the doctrine of justification by faith is found more in the commentaries by John Calvin than in the later more systematic Five Point Calvinism of his successors.

And so dispensationalism is a man made theology which makes arguments against Reformation Theology by use of the dialectic, sometimes using the Marxist Version. While Reformation Theology, called Replacement Theology, is the Thesis, the Anti-thesis opposes that Reformation Theology. And part of the problem with dispenationalism is that it claims to teach justification by faith, but it weakens that spiritual power of the Born Again Believer in its opposition to some New Testament Scriptures.

Not quite.

Reformation Theology/Calvinism is a man made theology that has many heretical beliefs, notably the Five Points of Calvinism, Replacement Theology, and the fake covenants of law and faith.

Dispensationalism rejects the Five Points of Calvinism in favor of the Five Articles of Remonstrance, Israel and the Church are Two Peoples with Two Destinies, and the fake covenants of law and faith have been expanded into seven fake dispensations.

 

[northwye]

I wish I knew more about the differences between what John Calvin Himself taught and what his successors, the Calvinists taught,called Five Point Calvinism, and more about the differences between the Calvinism of the New England Puritans and the Calvinism involved in the period of revivals in 18th century in the U.S. called The Great Awakening.

I think that in part what inspired the Great Awakening was a bringing in of a New Spiritual Life into the somewhat dead Calvinism in New England then. I know from history that one source of this New Spiritual Life during the 18th century Great Awakening came out of the Scots-Irish form of Calvinism mostly from the Appalachian Mountains.

I have read some of John Calvin's Commentaries on Scripture, and it seems to be that this is what Reformation Theology is, and not Five Point Calvinism, which dispensationalists say is Calvinism or Five Point Calvinism, and what they call Replacement Theology. The big problem with dispensationalists trying to advance their own man made theology and calling Calvinism Replacement Theology is found in Hebrews 8: 6-7 and 13.

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." And Hebrews 8: 13 says " In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Hebrews 10: 9 reinforces the statement in Hebrews 8: 13 and says in an explicit way that Christ took away the first covenant - the Old Covenant - so that he could establish the second or New Covenant. "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

There are also New Testament texts in II Corinthians 3: 7-11 which support Hebrews 8: 6-7. 13 and Hebrews 10: 9,

"But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8.How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9.For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10.For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11.For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."

Here Paul says what he calls the ministration of death and condemnation was done away with and the ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness was established.

But the method of interpretation of scripture by dispensationalists is literal, and the exact same literal words are not being used by Paul in II Corinthians 3: 7-11. For example, Paul does not use a Greek which can be translation as "replace."

 

[northwye]

"Folks were asking exactly what a non substantive reply is:

Definition--A reply that fails to answer a question, but instead, trolls and does not contribute to the thread. Failing to answer a question doesn't necessarily fit this definition if the member is not making personal attacks or mocking. Sometimes a person doesn't have an answer or doesn't have the wherewithal to answer." Quote from Sherman

Many arguments on TOL are not about questions, but are arguing opposing interpretations of scripture.

And in the absence of any non-dispenationalists to argue with, dispensationalists argue with one another here, which is more often on different interpretations of Bible texts.

The focus on "non-substantive reply" or "non-substantive arguments" is interesting. But first a "substantive argument" needs to be defined,

And this is not always easy to do. Because intent can be a part of the definition of a substantive argument. Does a Member intend to avoid getting into "non-substantive argument?" And there is the problem of trying to appear giving a substantive argument when in fact the argument is deceptive in some way.

And knowledge of what "commonsense logic" is and how it is involves when applied to your argument is important in a substantive argument. So is knowledge of the Bible topic being argued about and ability to use the Internet to find information on the topic.

And what is called the dialectic may be an important part of "non-substantive argument? Many tactics of the dialectic can be seen as "non-substantive arguments."

Many tactics of the dialectic used here on TOL are attempts to discredit the opponent, and so are personal attacks such an attempt to discredit the opponent in arguments.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And part of the problem with dispenationalism is that it claims to teach justification by faith, but it weakens that spiritual power of the Born Again Believer in its opposition to some New Testament Scriptures.

What New Testament Scriptures?