Paul's Passing Thoughts

The Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Either/Or Hermeneutic

Before we move on, more should be said about the Shawnee Hills sermon. The mechanics of that message lays an important foundation for understanding. The mechanics of the message used Plato’s two worlds as a hermeneutic, or method of interpretation. In essence, this is the serpent’s “knowledge of good and evil.” The serpent stated to Eve that to know was to know good and evil. Opposites become a hermeneutic. We discussed this concept in chapter three. Reality is defined by the difference in two things. One may take note that this idea is stated in the very first sentence of the Calvin Institutes (1.1.1.), and the rest of the Institutes are predicated on that foundational theses. This is ontological dualism.

For the purpose of preventing confusion, we should focus on the target outcome of those who use such constructs: to install a mortal mediator between man and God. In service to that, Plato’s two worlds are basically the knowledge of good and evil. It’s the knowledge of the shadow world versus the world of the true, good, and beautiful. Consequently, this ontological dualism is sometimes referred to as the either/or hermeneutic. EVERYTHING is either this, or that, and there is NO in-between. This is a consistent element seen in the teachings of Reformed theology, and Calvinism in particular. Why? Because EVERYTHING is categorized as being in league with either the visible, or the invisible. Heaven, or earth. The worldly, or heavenly. Good, or evil. There is no in-between; it’s one or the other. Heaven can have nothing in common with earth.

In the Shawnee message, the aforementioned CU professor started with the concept of wisdom. He began by splitting wisdom into wisdom/knowledge. He then proceeded to use Scripture to make the case that all true wisdom is preceded by knowledge and defined that as “fear (reverence) of the Lord.” Therefore, there is only one kind of wisdom: heavenly, or wisdom from above. And, this “wisdom” is not based on the empirical, but on “reverence.” The word “wisdom” was split into wisdom/knowledge to make the case for one legitimate “wisdom.”

He then split the word “idea” into moral/ethical. He admits in the message that these words are “normally” thought of as “synonymous.” He then proceeded to correct that notion and categorize the two words. Moral was associated with the individual, and ethical was associated with the group. So effectively, he separated ideas into two categories. Since there is only ONE wisdom, either individual “moral” ideas are from above, or ethical ideas are from above. One is of the world by default.

Which category should moralism, the pursuant of the individual, belong? He defines that by associating the five senses with individual preference, and the pursuit of pleasure, and avoidance of pain which obviously does not always benefit the group. He also associated “personal piety” with the individual and labeled it “worldly.” Though he said personal piety was a good thing, he also said that it was only good if predicated on what’s best for the group: “If it’s only half, it’s not the whole thing. It becomes worldly.” This means that personal piety is defined by what’s best for the group. As a short digression, it should be stated that no philosophy has contributed more to the mass graves of human history than that ideology.

This is further articulated in the message by the division of the word, “justice” into fairness/justice. Fairness is associated with the individual, and therefore worldly, and justice is associated with the group. This is Plato’s very definition of justice.

In addition, he associated “worldly wisdom” with “practical” wisdom that benefits worldly endeavors. There is a working wisdom for the shadow world that is practical, but doesn’t necessarily benefit the group. The following chart shows the progression of thought in the message:

In this method of interpretation, there cannot be various interpretations of words that are morally neutral from the perspective of heaven and earth. There is no melding of the spiritual and the material. A decision cannot benefit the individual and the group. A decision cannot be fair and just. A decision cannot be practical and ethical. A judgment cannot be fair and just. You cannot be self-sufficient and trusting of God—it’s either one or the other.

You cannot have a personal vision as well as a group vision. What heaven considers good cannot be good in the material world. Nothing in the material world can be considered good by heaven. Man cannot know good. He cannot know truth. He can only obey Plato’s philosopher kings or pursue the vision of the good supplied by Reformed elders. This is exactly why New Calvinist churches are fraught with strange ministry titles like, pastor over spiritual vision etc.

The knowledge of good and evil is to know that the material is evil and the invisible is good. Simply stated, it allows no word in heaven to mean the same thing that it does on earth. Justice in heaven isn’t the same as it is on earth; on earth, it’s “farness” for the individual. Only the group, a heavenly concept, can display justice in its unity around a truth brought down from heaven by mortal mediators. They are “masters of sentences” and other such medieval terms. They must rightly divide words according to their proper correlation to the good and the evil. They must rightly divide words that point the producers to the vision of the good.

As one New Calvinist stated: words not rightly interpreted and used will make a person “empty.” Reformed elders must teach the congregants to not use words, “emptily.”[49] He suggested in the sermon that there are four meanings to the word “will” when pertaining to the will of God. The concern was with Romans 12:2 which states plainly that Christians can know the will of God through a process. We can’t have that. The technique is the same: divide the word “will” (in this case x 4), and assign the redefinitions to their appropriate relationship to good and evil. Assuredly, the final equation will always be a reminder that man is incompetent to interpret the world of shadows in which he lives.

This guy could have written chapter three of TTANC 2. I am having a transcript made of this and some things said will be cited in the conclusion. He is dead on in regard to the institutional church. However, his sanctification paradigm needs some adjustment. Christ doesn’t do it all in our sanctification. Right, I know, he makes that point, but in our day it needs to be emphasized.

Performance in sanctification DOES NOT lead to self-righteous “bullying.” Hello, our “performance” in sanctification, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with our justification, will be judged by Christ and there will be loss though we will still be saved “by fire.” Whatever that means, and I confess I am not sure at this point. The help of the Holy Spirit in sanctification is an incentive to do more, not an incentive to say we do nothing and Christ does it all. An inability to perform in sanctification, in and of ourselves, is the primary argument used by the spiritual tyrant for control.

You can’t dichotomize knowing and doing. On the one hand, you can’t argue that we shouldn’t believe we need spiritual control freaks to know, and then argue on the other hand that we can’t do. Or, perform. This splitting of activity in sanctification into two groups, doing and performance, and making one bad and the other good, smacks of the same ontological dualism used by the tyrants themselves to interpret reality any way they want to. If you don’t like the meaning of a word, make two synonyms antonyms; one of the material world, and the other of the spiritual. The speaker on this mp3 is way too nuanced on this point. It raises a red flag for me. Tyrants thrive on the inability of the individual, emphasizing such in sanctification can lead to one jumping out of the tyrant’s frying pan and into the fire.

NEVERTHELESS, what he states about the institutional church and the abuse of Hebrews 13:17 is a must listen. It reinforces my assertion: home fellowships and the New Testament model must replace what we have now.

Here is the link for listening and downloading:  http://www.thegodjourney.com/audio/2013/131108h.mp3

Right click on the screen and choose the download option if you want the file.

paul

Absolute truth is therefore impossible in the shadow world. We often hear people say that all lies have an element of truth and no truth is pure truth. This comes from the roots of Platonist Western thought. And frankly, Calvin harps on that notion throughout his Institutes, especially in 3.14.9-11. What we perceive in this world is a shadow of some pure form that is not accessible to the commoners. Even those who have access to the invisible cannot bring about a pure manifestation in this life—they simply strive through study and reason to bring the best wisdom to bear on this life. Nobody contends that the Philosopher kings run a perfect show, but it is our best life now—if we obey the philosopher kings and, “lean not on our own understanding” which is mostly worldly, shadowy wisdom. But the Bible NEVER speaks about truth in those terms. It’s true or not true, period. Later, we will conclude this chapter with a comparison between Platonist metaphysics and Biblical metaphysics. Suffice to say for now that a word spoken by God means what He intends it to mean. God doesn’t have communication issues.

A prime example of what we are discussing is a sermon delivered at Shawnee Baptist church in Xenia, Ohio on August 19^th, 2012. During the visit, it became obvious to this author that the church was in the process of being taken over by those of the New Calvinist mindset. The sermon was delivered by a professor of New Testament theology from Cedarville University, a conservative Christian college. He was also a member at Shawnee during that time. The subject was decision making, and what kind of worldview yields proper decisions. Only two possible worldviews were presented, the vision of the good, and the vision of the worldly good. “Wisdom” was presented as coming forth from “knowledge” which is always based on “fear of the Lord.” “Wisdom” always has a “goal,” and each vision, when pursued, produces a certain outcome. The professor then defined the vision of the worldly good as,

…worldly wisdom is sensual or natural. Depending on your translation, the word will be a little bit different there. And I used the word “sensual” here to kind of underscore the idea that it’s tied to the senses. Normally, when we think of sensual, we think of sexual pleasure or something like that; that’s not what James means. All he’s saying is that it’s sort of tied to the senses or to pursuing certain ends. Most of the time it would be things like pursuing pleasure as a good and avoiding pain. Those seem kind of good. I like pleasure. I like to avoid pain. That seems to be kind of natural to us. Hence, it’s natural. Those kind of end up being the goals. You can put them up there.

The professor defined worldly wisdom as being defined via the senses, and therefore resulting in the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This Platonist approach is problematic because of its strict dichotomy between the material world and the invisible world with one being good and the other being evil. The professor then linked the five senses, and the concerns thereof, to individualism:

Because worldly wisdom is self-oriented, the source of worldly wisdom is autonomy and sovereignty. It’s the exact same thing. And so James says the source of worldly wisdom is always in the end going to be demonic in this regard.

Now this is abnormal. This is an abnormal condition for us. God did not create us to be sovereign, independent beings. He did not create us to declare our independence of him, and He always wanted us to be dependent on him. So this condition of autonomy is one that, if we acknowledge that we’re abnormal, then we have to acknowledge why we’re abnormal. And that would bring us back to God. Well, the world doesn’t wanna do that. So what will the world do? The world is gonna try and make this a normal, self-focused vision of what’s good and try to normalize it, try to make it sound like this is the only really true vision of how things should be.

So what happens? We have things like, oh I don’t know. Autonomy starts to become things like independence and self-sufficiency. Those sound sort of virtuous kind of ideas. Selfishness becomes ambition and goal-orientation.

The Cedarville University professor then linked collectivism to the vision of the good. Prior to that, he made a division of meaning between “fairness” and “justice,” and “moral” ideas and “ethical” ideas. He linked fairness and moralism to individualism, and linked justice and ethics to collectivism. In philosophy, this is known as dualism, or ontological dualism. Everything is interpreted within the context of a dual realty; e.g., Plato’s two worlds. This method of epistemology will often define a word in its material world context and its invisible world context. This is done by using synonyms and treating them as antonyms. The professor did this several times in the sermon we are presently discussing. In the final analysis, individualism was equated with the worldly, and collectivism was equated with the vision of the good. All “godly” decisions benefit “the group.” This is Platonism to a “T.”

The problem becomes the following; for example, words and concepts like “justice” are divided and do not pertain to the individual:

Now I want you to think about the vision of the good that is out there for a minute. What does our society, what does our world try to tell us? If you think about it, there are competing messages that we get. For example, fairness is more important than justice in our society. And fairness is, “I need to get mine. It needs to be me.” Justice related more toward what’s good for the community.

And in New Calvinist circles, what is “fairness”? Fairness is, “Everybody deserves hell.” Therefore, there is NO “justice” for an individual. Individual fairness and justice are mutually exclusive. Fairness is of the world, justice is good. This worldview is not just a little common in the universities across the world that are educating our future pastors, and this should answer the why? question regarding the church’s blind eye to spiritual abuse unequivocally. If justice for the individual will harm the group, all bets are off.

Moreover, the question of absolute truth now comes full circle. If heaven’s definition of justice is not our exact definition of justice because this world is a shadowy manifestation of Plato’s true forms, and there is a little bit of untruth in truth and truth in untruth, then pure justice is impossible anyway, and besides, “Everyone shares some guilt in this situation.” How many times have we heard that jingle? It’s not exactly a catalyst for justice on any wise. It should also answer the question of why victims are often blamed, again, unequivocally. Sir Karl Raimund Popper, generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th century, laid the blame for tyranny in Western culture at the feet of Plato’s collectivism. The church should not think there is an exception because Calvin dressed collectivism in Bible verses.