Paul's Passing Thoughts

The Four Groups: Which One Are You?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 19, 2012

Humanity in Western culture can be split up into four different groups from two different camps. Think it simplistic if you will, but it explains many things in Christianity that has perplexed me for years.

Camp one believes man is capable, and should be self-dependent as much as possible. The following are the two groups in that camp:

1. Regenerate thinkers. These are saved people who deem themselves capable of knowing truth individually, and are uncomfortable with predominate centrality of control without accountability. They note the fact that we are the only creatures God created upon the earth that can reason, so it stands to reason that God wants us to utilize that capability to the fullest extent in order to improve our environment and help others.

2. Unregenerate thinkers. Like regenerate thinkers, they think man is capable. Their convictions, at least in America, are probably going to be expressed through patriotism and a respect for ideas produced by the Enlightenment era. They are going to be unwilling to trade freedom for supposed guarantees. They are individualistic. Like the regenerate thinkers, they believe strong individuals are better able to help those who really need it.

Camp two believes man is incapable, and should have implicit faith in some sort of elite group or institution. Thinking and reasoning are greatly devalued in this group. The “group” is paramount, and individualism is deemed to be the root of all evil. Following the brain trust of the group is vital for unity and peace. This gives opportunity for the individual to plunge the depths of selflessness—emptying oneself for the sake of the group.

1. Regenerate groupies. This group puts all of its trust in the religious institution or the “Divines.”  What they can understand about God and His will is limited. They therefore depend on things like “Daily Bread” short devotionals and creeds. They follow the “polity” (government) of the church to insure they are in good standing with God. Ultimately, God will hold the Divines responsible and not the group—the group is only responsible for following and obeying God’s anointed. The anointed are responsible for determining the deep things of God and presenting them to the group in a way that can be understood. Hence, “orthodoxy” (the authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures by the Divines determined by councils and the confessions that come from them), and creeds.

2. Unregenerate groupies. This group concurs with the governing elite that they are owned by the government. Dependence on the government is paramount, and contribution to its strength the highest form of morality. It is predicated on the basic ineptness of mankind. No big surprise then that after a speech by a politician, political commentators  tell us what he/she just said. Again, loyalty to the group is paramount; hence, the group is voted for regardless of many factors because of the fundamental agreement about who owns mankind.

These factors answer questions that I have had for years. Why is church so intellectually unchallenging? Why is it that seminary students don’t teach what they learn in seminary to congregants? Why is empty headed praise music and contemplationism all the rage in today’s church? Why do Christians vote for liberal democrats? Why is the sin of church leaders swept under the rug? Why are people happy to pay taxes? Why are people who ask questions in church feared and ostracized? (they threaten the well-being of the group). What’s up with cults? And why do cult-like denominations and other groups get a pass on being called cults? (Because they manifest the same underlying presuppositions about man in more subtle ways).

This is a paradigm that I plan to develop and expand on, but I believe everyone fits into one of these groups, whether they are aware of it or not. And by the way, which camp were the Reformers in? I will give you a clue:

The following quotes concerning the evil of human reason are from the father of Christian Protestantism, Martin Luther:

Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft. (The damned whore, Reason).

Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom … Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.

Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but — more frequently than not — struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and … know nothing but the word of God.

There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason… Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed.

Martin Luther, quoted by Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1963), p. 75

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.

Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason.

To be a Christian, you must “pluck out the eye of reason.”

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

Martin Luther, “Works,” Volume 22, c. 1543

paul

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. paulspassingthoughts said, on September 19, 2012 at 8:11 AM

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.

    Like

  2. Andy Young said, on September 19, 2012 at 8:42 AM

    A couple of points you might want to add to expand upon the portrait of a regenerate thinker: 1> They believe in the priesthood of the believer. 2> They are obedient in submitting to God-ordained authority (i.e. pastors) but recognize the limits of that authority as bounded by scripture.

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 19, 2012 at 8:55 AM

      Andy,

      Thanks for this. I am hoping more comments will aid in developing this proposition. It will be at least a minor chapter point in “The Reformation Myth” and maybe more.

      Like

  3. Andy Young said, on September 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM

    And for anyone who thinks that pastors can’t become abusive, just take a look at Jeremiah 23 and read God scathing rebuke of those who “shepherded” the nation of Israel.

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

      Andy,

      Yes, the authority of a pastor is subject to Scripture as interpreted by Christians according to their own biblically trained consciences and the counsel of the indwelling Holy Spirit. In fact, to follow a pastor in the face of violating our own consciences is sin and not according to faith. The Catholic/Reformed doctrine of implicit faith turns Scripture upside down. We only follow leaders as they “follow Christ.” They simply have no authority beyond the Scriptures.

      Like

  4. lydiasellerofpurple said, on September 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM

    Paul, I like your categories. I have been astonished at reading YRR/NC articles and then comments on blogs and thinking how they sound so much like liberals in one way and divine right of kings, in another way. Liberals use a lot of ad homenim and the NC movement has picked this up as a use against folks who dare question or disagree with them. When reading about the government and behavior of Puritan communities, I am shocked at how many of their concepts are used today by the YRR. It really is about controlling people. And many people like this. it makes them feel pious and is much easier than abiding in Christ constantly. Just follow the leader and his rules.

    I have long maintained that what passes for pastors/elders/leaders in many churches today is a lot like what we read the Prophets railing against concerning the priests in the OT. It is uncanny– the parallels. History repeating itself. And God hated it.

    I would say “obedience” to a pastor needs to be defined better. Are we using the traditional definition of “pastor” or the biblical FUNCTION of pastor? Submission in the Greek is more of a voluntary position and not the military definition. (these things are always hard in Koine Greek because there were only 20,000 words in their entire language where we have upwards of 700,000 words to describe things. The best way to look at this is that Christ would NEVER teach us to follow evil or any nefarious behavior. The temple viel was torn in two for a reason!!!)

    We need to keep in mind that almosts all the Epistles were written to the entire Body of Christ. Not just addressed to the leaders to carry out the instructions, admonitions, etc. Many folk miss that part. The church of Corinth was tasked to deal with the chap in 1 Corin 5, for example. No where does Paul give instructions for a few in leadership to deal with him. In fact, the church in Corinth has no examples of even having elders. If pastor was an office and so important to the life of the church then who was the pastor of the church at Philippi? Corinth? Were there multiple “pastors”? We have to rethink the whole concept of what has become traditional church with pews facing forward to hear one guy teach week after week. This actually keeps the body spiritually immature.

    For another perspective on the conventional wisdom of what the NT really teaches concerning this, read this:

    Click to access straight.pdf

    Take some time to be a Berean about what he presents.

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM

      Lydia,

      Add the fact that Al Mohler is a flaming socialist who (if I was asked to bet on it) will probably vote for Obama. Nor do I think it was an accident that Warren gave the message at the inauguration. Nor do I think it an accident that presidential debates were going to held at Warren’s church.

      Like

  5. Argo said, on September 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM

    Paul,
    I love Luther’s last quote in your post. In its explicit folly it renders all the other quotes as not just laughable, but qualitatively laughable.

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on September 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM

      Argo,
      Nooooooooooooooo doubt.

      Like


Leave a comment