The Dialectic and Theologies That Contradict Scripture

[tulsa 2011]

The Dialectic and Theologies That Contradict Scripture

In our political system there are only two opposing factions, Democrats verses Republicans, the Left Versus the Right, and Conservatives versus Liberals. If there were a number of almost equally strong factions all competing for power, the dialectic would not work too well. The present day Democrats are more skilled in the use of the dialectic than the Republicans, and for this reason will likely win this round of conflict. In other words, they are more skilled at telling lies than the Republicans..Within the two party system, within the dialectic, Obama and the Democrats may be setting up things now for the coming to power of a conservative President and Congress, who will also bring the country farther along toward a highly controlled society. The dialectic system involves putting a new regime in place which the majority of people like and support, which moves the country toward the goals of the elite. Then, that new regime, doing the will of the elite, goes against the wishes of the majority of people, and it then sets the stage for the people to accept a new regime, which at first the people, or most of them, support and like.

This political use of the dialectic coming from Hegel and Marx is a fairly simple process. But very few people understand it and are deceived by it all the time. There are more complex types of the dialectic in use, and the dialectic is in use in most institutions in this country, including in religion. It is used all the time on Christian forums where most posters have anonymity. Only rarely are in-depth studies of Bible topics posted to teach rather than to argue.

What is the dialectic? "In the mid-19th century, the concept of "dialectic" was appropriated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and retooled in a non-idealist manner, becoming a crucial notion in their philosophy of dialectical materialism. Thus this concept has played a prominent role on the world stage and in world history. In contemporary polemics, "dialectics" may also refer to an understanding of how we can or should perceive the world (epistemology)," This is from wikipedia.

The dialectic has come to mean an ideology and a method for the changing of attitudes, beliefs and behavior which opposes absolute truth and absolute morality. The dialectic then opposes the absolute nature of "it is written," the Word of God. As a method for the changing of beliefs and doctrines the dialectic seeks to change or diminish faith that scripture is absolute facts. In other words the dialectic is an argument against scripture. It wants to compromise the absolute nature of scripture.

John Darby said that the "Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them..."

John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation'
Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.

"Them" are all physical Israel. The church, for Darby exists to "give
fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel." Darby thought that the purpose of the
Christian church, the ekklesia as a meeting, assembly or congregation
of Israel reborn in Christ as a spiritual house (I Peter 2: 5-9), the Israel of God, made into The Body of Christ like the Catholic capital C Church, was to honor all physical
Israel.

Suppose that a Christian who wants to follow scripture instead of man
made theology points out that Jesus Christ in John 10: 16, teaches as
fact that "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them
also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold and one shepherd."

The Christian who has a love for the truth of God's word instead of
man made theology might also cite Paul in Romans 12: 4, I Corinthians
10: 17, Galatians 3: 28, Ephesians 2: 14-16, and Ephesians 4: 4 all of
which say there is one group of God's people, the elect, not two or more groups.

Then what Paul says in Romans 2: 17-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 25-26
about physical Israel obviously makes John Darby's theology false.

The dialectic begins when facts such as John 10: 16 conflict with the man made theology
that a person has accepted. The dialectic type of dialogue then tries to argue against
the absolute truth of scripture, such as John 10: 16, to overthrow that absolute truth and replace it with compromise, and with man made false doctrines. The person who, for example, follows
John Darby's doctrine that Christianity's purpose is to honor physical Israel, and that God now has two peoples, physical Israel and the church, has invested emotion, feelings and heart in this following of Darby. To defend that relationship of feeling he then enters into the dialectic process of quarreling with those who hold to the truth of scripture.

And the dialectic also begins when, among those who are not in the truth of scripture and oppose the absolute nature of scripture, have very different doctrines. They clash because each has a love affair with their own denomination's doctrines.

What is the difference between a debate, an argument, a quarrel and bickering? When the topic is Bible doctrine, this difference becomes important. Paul's doctrine in Romans 1: 28-28 in which he lists the Greek word eris, as a trait of those with a reprobate mind is not overthrown by substitution of the English word strife for debate in the new versions. There are at least four other places where Paul states this doctrine in more general terms.

Read these verses: I Corinthians 1: 11, where Paul says there were contentions among those in this ekklesia. Read Romans 2: 8 , where he says "..unto them that are contentious, but do not obey the truth...indignation and wrath." See I Corinthians 11: 16, where he says "If any man be contentious, we have no such custom." And look at II Corinthians 12: 20. Here Paul says he fears that when he comes back to his people at Corinth that he will find them in debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults." The NIV has quarreling for the Greek word eris. This is one of a few places where the NIV supports a doctrine that some other recent versions diminish.

The dialectic mind deals in relationships of feeling, with emotions
and opinions, and opposition to absolutes to defend those feelings and opinions.
Remember that the self psychologists, especially Carl Rogers, were not interesting in
cognition, in how accurate a person's perception is, but only in what he feels. Rogers only asked,
"How do you feel?"

The dialectic mind starts from a position that there are no
absolute truths or absolute morals. It is a mind that
accepts yea and nay about doctrines taught in the scripture. Those who
use dialectic arguments or quarrels against the facts of scripture are always looking for
loopholes, shades of grey, contradictions and verses where the meanings and implications
are not spelled out in great detail to hit at with their rejection of
the absolute.

And those who use the dialectic often do not start an attack directly against the doctrine they are opposing. Instead, they often attack the doctrine from the side. They start an argument against some one small part of the doctrine, or a related doctrine, thinking that in so doing they can somehow, by a kind of witchcraft, defeat the entire doctrine of truth they oppose. The person who habitually has trouble refraining from use of the dialectic in carrying on a dialogue over issues of disagreement often misrepresents the position of the opponent. Sometimes the misrepresentation is obvious and at other times more subtle. A user of the dialectic may also make statements for the purpose of causing the opponent to feel the desire to refute the statement, in order for the argument or quarrel to go on and on. In other words, the dialectic is used as part of an argumenative or quarrelsome stance or attitude. And statements within this quarrelsome mind set are sometimes made just to annoy the opponent, though name calling is avoided. The user of the dialectic may enjoy arguments or quarreling, and may be more interested in taking part in arguments than in trying to find what is true and not true for a topic.

So the dialectic can easily become a dishonest process of argument. This aspect of the dialectic is widespread in politics, in government and in other areas at the present time, and if it were not so widespread could be seen as a manifestation of the psychopathic personality disorder.

Those who operate with the dialectic - which is now almost everyone in
our culture - try to justify themselves before men (Luke 16: 1).

The dialectic as an argument, sometimes a more contentious argument which becomes a quarrel, a way of changing the absolute truth
that one's opponent holds to, historically has come out of a system of
thought which teaches that there is no God.. It comes out of Hegel
and Marx. But before Hegel and Marx it came out of the second beast of
Revelation 13: 11, who has two horns like a lamb but speaks as a
dragon, and from the dragon himself whose use of the dialectic was on
Eve in Genesis 3 to fix her obedience to the absolute authority of God over her