God Doesn't Speak Into the Dialectic Mind

[tulsa 2011]

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..."

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. [p.10]"

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. [p.128]"

To learn to identify the use of the dialectic in discourse, 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." Or the antithesis is brought up in an
effort to change a group's position by using the person who presented
the thesis as an example.

Usually, with the dialectic, the "facilitator" who tries to change an
opinion, perception, idea or bit of information will not immediately
challenge the thesis head on. The facilitator may even begin by
appearing to agree with the thesis, or will claim he agrees with it in
part. Then, the facilitator side steps a head on challenge of the
thesis based on fact, and challenges the thesis from the side.
Sometimes this is where using one particular point, not the main
point, of the thesis comes it. The facilitator will focus on one point
and make it the focus of attention, in part, changing the thesis to
that one point. Or, the facilitator will bring up a point that appears
to be somewhat irrelevant to the thesis. Or, the facilitator will
misrepresent the thesis slightly or in big way. There are other
methods of using the dialectic.

Dean Gotcher emphasizes the role of acceptance by the group which the
person who brings up a thesis belongs to. The dialectic works better
when the person targeted wants to be accepted by the group. He may be
willing to compromise his position in order to gain group acceptance.
The facilitator works to crate group coherence and agreement on the
issue at hand. This use of group acceptance can work also with an
Internet forum, where there tends to be some agreement on positions,
but there are factions also in the group, which may be in the
minority. The user of the dialectic, the facilitator in the Internet
forum situation, may try to appeal to the majority view against the
minority view. This assumes the target person, part of the minority,
or a minority of one in some cases, wants acceptance by the group, or
at least wants some in the group to accept his views.

Gotcher talks a lot about the contemporary origins of the dialectic.
He especially spends time in talking about the following guys in
history:

Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831)
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883)
Abraham Maslow
Carl Rogers
Irvin Yalom
Theodor Adorno
Erick Fromm
Norman O. Brown
Herbart Marcuse

Adorno and Marcuse were core members of the Frankfurt School. Fromm
was similar to them
in ideology. Theodor W. Adorno, who was the senior author of the
highly influential book, The Authoritian Personality (1950), posed as
a social psychologist, and taught that fascism is caused by
Christianity and the strong family. The Frankfurt School, which
included Wilhelm Reich on its fringes, represented what is called
cultural Marxism. They set out to overthrow the major institutions of
the West, especially Christianity and the family, by non-violent
means, rather than by the violent means of old Marxist Bolshevism led
by Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. . The dialectic is one important
procedure in overthrowing the foundational institutions of the West.

But - the dialectic is not limited to cultural Marxism, because its
use spread to the institutions of society, including the Christian
church, And in the churches, the dialectic is not limited to the Rick
Warren type of mega-churches, which emphasize church growth more than
adherence to the Gospel.

Cultural Marxism, via the Frankfurt School, began to be spread from
the major universities, especially from the University of California
at Berkeley in the early fifties. Those in personality and social
psychology during the fifties and sixties became familiar with the
Adorno book and the huge number of attitude studies that grew from it.
A few years later, the cultural Marxism movement, plus Abraham Maslow
and Carl Rogers self psychology, spread to higher education and soon
to the public school. This is where Dean Gotcher encountered the
dialectic since he was in education.

In addition, the Group Dynamics movement started in this country by
Kurt Lewin, set the stage for the use of the dialectic attitude change
procedure to be used effectively in small cohesive groups. The
encounter group movement led by Carl Rogers and other psychologists in
the sixties and seventies made use of the knowledge about group
dynamics and the importance of cohesiveness for changing group
members.

 

[Boanerges]

This is just me personal viewpoint; I have personally seen God humble and save the strongest, hard headedest person I ever knew so I do not spend time talking about what He cannot do.

 

[tulsa 2011]

The dialectic begins when a relationship comes into conflict with an
absolute truth. It could also be an absolute morality that a
relationship comes into conflict with. The relationship is often with
the church, and one's own denomination, his or her own congregation,
the minister, and friends within that congregation.

The dialectic as an argument then tries to compromise that absolute
truth in some way - in order to preserve the relationship.

Th world has, during the period the falling away of II Thessalonians
2: 3-4 has gone on and the leavening of the church has been in
progress (Luke 13: 21), shifted its paradigm. The West of Northern
Europe and North America shifted from a mostly absolute truth to
shades of grey, to opinion, to how do you feel about it, what do you
think? The church, being part of the world has also shifted its way
of viewing absolute truth, though it has to teach scripture to some
extent to preserve its standing as a supposed spiritual institution.
The church doesn't support the absolute truth that Paul and Barnabas,
for example, in Acts 15: 2, contended for against the leaven of the
Pharisees. It says there was "no small dissension and disputation
with them," that is, with the Pharisees, some of whom now claimed to
be Christians, but were promoting the leaven of the Pharisees (Luke
12: 1, Mark 8: 15)

The Pharisees of Christ's time had the dialectic mind. In a number of scriptures
the Pharisees argued with the doctrines taught by Jesus Christ, who is fully
God. Because the Pharisees had a relationship of feelings toward their position and
the doctrines they had been taught and were teaching to others, what Christ
was teaching threatened them. So, they argued against the Truth, standing before them.

"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." John 11: 48

The dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees in John 8 is just one example of their use of the dialectic to argue against Truth. God could not speak doctrine into their group mind because they did not have ears to hear it.

After the Risen Christ confronted Saul the Pharisee on the road to Damascus, blinded him and shook him up so bad that he changed quickly from Saul the Pharisee to Paul the Apostle of Christ, then God could speak doctrine into his mind, which was no longer a dialectic mind.

The dialectic as an argument, 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 Dragon of
Revelation 13: 11, whose use of the dialectic was on Eve in Genesis 3
to fix her obedience to the absolute authority of God over her.

The tactics of the dialectic argument vary, but it often avoids a
direct focus upon the main teachings of whatever absolute truth - from
Scripture - is the issue, and hits at it from the side.

After listening to Dean Gotcher for a while I realized
that Satan was
the first "psychotherapist" or facilitator of the dialectic and took
over much of man's fleshly nature, which includes self-esteem as
pride, as Gotcher emphasizes, "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of
the eyes, and the pride of life" I John 2: 16.

The first facilitator's work on Eve is recorded in Genesis 3: 1-6
where Satan deceived Eve into disobeying God and eating of the tree of
the knowldge of good and evil. Luke 11: 14-27 is almost a verbatim
account of what was said in dialogue between Christ, the Pharisees,
the people gathered there and the woman in verse 27 who said blessed
is the womb and breasts that bore Christ, focusing
on the physical or flesh, but also a kind of compromise for the two
factions, Christ and the Pharisees, who he called serpents in other
texts (Matthew 23: 33). This verbal interaction is an example of the
Hegelian dialectic.

Preachers can become facilitators of the dialectic since they were
trained in seminaries influenced by Transformational Marxism, or
Stealth Marxism, not seen
by most as a form of Marxism. Preachers into the church growth
movement are especially likely to use the Marxist dialectic.

Most Americans think that the only threat from Marxism is Bolshevism,
which advocated
takeover of governments by violence. Transformational Marxism works
more quietly, gradually taking over all the
institutions of society. To a great extent, Transformational Marxism
has been run by intellectuals in the major American univesities. The
counterculture of the sixties and seventies which influenced a whole
generation of Baby Boomers and the leftist political correctness
movement which started at that same time were the initial phases of
the takeover of the institutions by Transformational Marxists. The
media popularized the counterculture and political correctness, which
has been called Cultural Marxism and was Transformational Marxism.

 

[tulsa 2011]

"For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." II Corinthians 1: 19-20

In Jesus Christ there are no shades of grey, no double mindedness, only absolutes. The dialectic
mind, on the other hand, operates on shades of grey and doublemindedness.

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5: 12

The dialectic mind starts from a position that there are no absolute truths or absolute morals. It is a double minded mind, and accepts yea and nay about doctrines taught in the scripture.

Yet when the dialectic procedure for transforming society infiltrated the Christian seminaries and the
church, the leaders, the Pharisees of our time, have to give some appearance of having faith in the Word of God. But they still operate on the basis of yea and nay for the doctrines of Christ, and find subtle ways of defeating some of these doctrines in their own eyes and in the eyes of their flocks. They try to justify themselves before men (Luke 10: 25-20).

This dialectic procedure for transforming society - the long march through the institutions advocated by Antonio Gramsci - was first developed within major American universities within the fields of psychology and the social sciences.

Theodore W. Adorno, who posed as a personality-social psychologist
doing research on the "authoritarian pesonality," was lodged in the
University of California at Berkeley. Herbert Marcuse, another
Frankfurter, was first at Brandeis University, and later at
the University of California, San Diego.

The Hegelian and
Marxist dialectic, as developed by the Frankfurt School people posing
as psychologists and by American shrinks like Carl Rogers and Abraham
Maslow, and in the early encounter group, builds up and makes the lust
of the flesh and the pride of life so dominant and valued that Satan
stirred up in Eve in Genesis 3: 1-6.

But many who think they are born again because they attend a church do
not have the love of the truth of II Thessalonians 2: 10-11, "And with
all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because
they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie:"

Psychology over-emphasizes and makes all important man's flesh, and
follows or supports the Transformational Marxist bent which wants to
overthrow God as the Father figure and wants to diminish the family
because the traditional family has been the foundation of
Christianity, and its patriatrical paradigm, "it is written," "two
plus two is always four and cannot be another number," etc.

Psychology exalts the flesh of man, especially man's pride, calling it
self-esteem and self-actualization (Rogers and Maslow), above man
created as a living soul.
Psychoanalysis from Freud stressed the flesh and advocated a revolt
against the Father authority figure. Behaviorism in psychology, from
Wundt, to Watson and to B.F. Skinner with his Skinner box psychology
all pointed toward a reduced man who is nothing but desires, feelings
and conditioning. Wilhelm Wundt did not deal with classical
and operant conditioning as did John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner.
Wundt did early work on sensory psychology, which was another form of
psychological reductionism.

Dean Gotcher has studied several other psychologists and psychiatrists
who have helped to develop the dialectic which first came from Hegel.
He has lectures on psychiatrist and group therapist Irvin Yalom,
Erick Fromm, Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse, who is more like a
sociologist than a psychologist.

Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychologist who wrote volumes on
the taxonomies of educational goals. His system has been used in the
certification of all public school and other school teachers for
decades. Bloom was a Transformational Marxist who had great influence
on the American education system - and all this could only happen
because American society is organized in a top-down way, so that the
elites at the top have control over the entire society.

Gotcher says the Mega Church movement cannot
exist without the dialectic church. That is, Psychologized
Transformational Marxism invaded the American church a number of decades
ago. Invading the church was a big part of the "long march through the
American institutions" by "non-violent" or transformational Marxism of
the Frankfurt School as well as from Antonio Gramsci.

 

[Rev T.S.Perkins]

No matter how smart we are when we speak it all comes out the same baaaaaah.! We are as sheep before the leading of the Shepard and not of our own intellagence ..for we can do or say nothing of worth accept for that which is Christ in us.....Rev

 

[tulsa 2011]

Dean Gotcher says "DIDACTIC PARADIGM--Right is right and wrong is
wrong, therefore chastening is justified: "If ye endure chastening,
God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father
chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are
partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had
fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence:
shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits,
and live? Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but
grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of
righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:7-11
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father which hath sent me." "For I have not spoken of myself; but
the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and
what I should speak." John 3:30; 12: 49
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your
father, which is in heaven." "For whosoever shall do the will of my
Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and
mother." "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father
which is in heaven." Matt.23:9; 12:50; 7:21

DIALECTICAL PARADIGM; All is gray therefore dialogue, not
chastening, is justified: "The philosopher Hegel said that truth is
found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis [right or wrong], but
in an emerging synthesis which reconciles the two [dialogue]." Martin
Luther King Jr. Strength to Love
Karl Marx: "Once the earthy family [chastening] is discovered to
be the secret of the heavenly family [chastening], the former must
itself be destroyed in theory and in practice [dialogue]." Karl Marx,
Thesis on Feuerbach #4.
Abraham Maslow: "We have to study the conditions which maximize
ought-perceptiveness." "Oughtiness is itself a fact to be
perceived." A. H. Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. ("I
have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students that the best
thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately. The correct
thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the
bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were
bastards." Maslow, Maslow on Management)
Carl Rogers: "Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask
himself 'What would my parents want me to do?' During the process of
therapy the individual comes to ask himself 'What does it mean to
me?'" Carl R. Rogers, On becoming a person.
Benjamin Bloom: "We recognize the point of view that truth and
knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths
which exist for all time and places." Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives Book I: Cognitive Domain (1956) Referred to
as Bloom's Taxonomy p. 32
Karl Marx: "In the eyes of dialectical philosophy, nothing is
established for all times, nothing is absolute or sacred."
Benjamin Bloom: "... "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to
attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed
beliefs and getting them to discuss issues." Benjamin S. Bloom
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book II: Affective Domain (1964)
p. 54

BLOOM'S TAXONOMIES

Link removed in order to post on this forum.

Dean Gotcher says: "Every teacher (certified) has to study and apply
Bloom's Taxonomies in the classroom. These works follow the very same
process Lucifer used to deceive Eve in the Garden of Eden. They are
build upon the dialectical process. I call Bloom's Taxonomies
Secularized Satanism, Intellectualized Witchcraft. That is what they
are.

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 1 Cognitive Domain and
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2 Affective Domain are more
commonly referred to as Bloom's Taxonomies, despite David R. Krathwohl
being the leading editor of Book 2. Despite the rot that John Dewey
and his progressive religion has brought to education these book have
had more to do with the erosion of morals and ethics in America than
any other books. Couched in the language of "academia" they are
actually the work of Transformational Marxists, using the language of
social psychological to communicate to their agents an agenda to
destroy the sovereignty of this nation for a dream of a one world
order."

More quotes from Dean Gotcher: " The heart of man, unrestrained, is
Pandora's Box, a box
(in ancient Greek it was known as a jar) full of evils. Once it is
opened it can not be closed, or is closed only in time to keep hope
from escaping. To achieve the liberating of these forces within the
creation the restraints and the standards, "the student's fixed
beliefs" (imposed upon them by their parents) must be "challenged"
wherein the student will feel free to discuss and justify them. This
is exactly the same system or procedure Satan used on Eve in the
Garden."

"That system is manifested in Karl Marx's statement "Once the
earthy family is discovered to be the secret of the heavenly family ,
the former must be destroyed in theory and in practice." Feuerbach
Thesis #4 In other words, once the traditional family, which demands
obedience and chastens those who disobey them and their commands, is
discovered to be the same system whereby God is able to communicate to
the next generation, where He likewise demands obedience and chastens
those who disobey him and his commands, the traditional family,
according to Karl Marx, must be destroyed/annihilated both in the way
people think and in the way they behave--a paradigm shift must take
place. The traditional family must be seen by society as an agency
which generates abnormal behavior. Culture will not tolerate the
initiation or sustaining of such behavior and will put pressure upon
any agency or institution which promotes or follows such teaching
style--culture war."

But more than in traditional societies it allows the individual a
greater amount of freedom in which to achieve a Weltanschauung1" p.
166
"1Often this is too challenging a goal for the individual to achieve
on his own, and the net effect is either maladjustment or the
embracing of a philosophy of life developed by others." p. 166
"1Cf. Erich Fromm, 1941; T. W. Adorno et al., 1950" p. 166

My comment: Benjamin Bloom here gives references to two of the change
agents who influenced him in his formulation of his educational goal
taxonomies. T.W. Adorno was an important member of the Frankfurt
School, who posed as a social and personality psychologist. Eric
Fromm was a psychologist, who, along with Norman O. Brown and Herbert
Marcuse wrote books
which were the foundation of the counterculture of the sixties and
seventies. Eric Fromm write Escape From Freedom, 1941, Norman O.
Brown's influential book was Life Against Death, 1959 and Herbert
Marcuse's book for the counterculture was Eros and Civilization, 1955,
The 1950 book by Theodor W. Adorno, et al, The Authoritarian
Personality, had a strong but more indirect influence on the
counterculture. Marcuse and Adorno were important members of the
German Frankfurt School.

And in the same era, of about 1956 to 1980, the ideas of Fromm and
Adorno went into Bloom's Educational Goal Taxonomies, which had a much
wider influence upon our culture than even the counterculture had.

Daen Gotcher calls the dialectic process and educational psychologist
Benjamin Bloom's Educational Goal books, the "cook books" on changing
America by what has been called political correctness, cultural
Marxism or Transformational Marxism.

 

[tulsa 2011]

No one involved in any of the core movements of the counterculture -
the drug and hippie movements - or of its allied movements like the
New Left, feminism, self psychology, the
New Age Occult people, the sex lib, and the homosexual and lesbian
movements ever realized that this "great rebellion" was not an
accident of history. It was part of what Antonio Gramsci, the
"non-violent" Marxist from Italy called "the long march through the
institutions." The Long March sought to diminish and eventually
destroy the influence of Biblical Christianity and the Father-Led
Family on American and Western society. The March of Transformational
Marxism also invaded the Christian seminaries and the denomination
hierarchical structures of the churches.

The Group Dynamics movement in social psychology provided part of the
intellectual framework for the encounter group movement of the sixties
and seventies - and for the group think mentality of the counterculture.
Remember Woodstock.

Group cohesiveness is an important concept in Group Dynamics. A small
group has to be cohesive, that is, have common attitudes, beliefs,
feelings and goals in order for the group to exert pressure upon
targeted individuals to change their attitude positions and behavior.
Kurt Lewin and his student, Leon Festinger, emphasized group
cohesiveness as the tendency of individuals in a group to stick
together. Festinger, and Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back, said
cohesiveness was “the total field of forces which act on members to
remain in the group." Group cohesiveness as a concept was used in the
encounter group movement because only a cohesive group can exert an
influence upon its individual members. The group facilitator worked to
create cohesiveness and manipulated the group's attitudes and behavior
by use of the dialectic, which he or she also used on targeted
"deviant" individuals in the group. In general, the cohesive group was
used by a facilitator to move individuals with absolute truths and
absolute morality to compromise those absolutes in order to stay in
their relationship to the cohesive group.

So, the social psychology of group cohesiveness was a necessary part
of the encounter group process and of the development of the dialectic
as an effective attitude change procedure.

Back in the sixties when Carl Rogers, William Coulson and a number of
other facilitators ran encounter groups involving the nuns of the
Sacred Heart of Mary in Southern California, they did not tell the
nuns that the patriarchal authority of God must be overthrown, that
Christian faith is fantasy, or that Roman Catholicism is false
doctrine.

Rogers and his crew of facilitators told the nuns they could be
themselves, and express their full potential and become
"self-actualized." They could become "fully functioning" people. Above
all, they could express their feelings which Rogerian theory put above
cognitive clarity or knowing. Rogers and his gang of facilitators ran
encounter groups using the Nuns, and processed them with the dialectic
in groups which were relatively cohesive.

The result was that these shrink allies of the Transformational Marxist
Frankfurt School psychologists and psychiatrists destroyed the
Immaculate Heart order. William Coulson in an interview sometimes
called "The Story of a Repentant Psychologist" long after the
encounter groups were run on the Nuns in 1966 and 1967 says "Within a
year after
our first interventions, 300 of them were petitioning Rome to get out
of their vows. They did not want to be under anyone's authority,
except the authority of their imperial inner selves."The interviewer
asks "How many years did it take to destroy this Immaculate Heart
order?
COULSON: It took about a year and a half." " Of the 615, how many are
left?" COULSON: There are the retired nuns, who are living in the
mother house in
Hollywood; there is a small group of radical feminists, who run a
center for feminist theology in a storefront in Hollywood."


William Coulson's story of how Carl Rogers and a number of trained
facilitators of encounter group procedures "destroyed" the Sacred
Heart of Mary group in Southern California is an example of the power
of the dialectic as developed within American social and clinical
psychology by the mid sixties. When you have a group led by a trained
facilitator of the dialectic where the group is deliberately led to
avoid focusing upon facts as truth and absolute morality, and instead
the group is led to focus more on feelings and opinions, then you have
a "shifty" group. A "shifty" group is one in which more traditional
reliance upon facts, or truths and on a fixed set of morals are given
up and whatever satisfies man's feelings and opinions, which are
derived from feelings, or emotions, take over.

God made man in the image of God, which means man was created to have
three parts, body, mind and spirit (Genesis 1: 27). The humanism of
Marx and of psychology knows only two parts of man, his body and his
mind. Marxism, both in its classical form of Bolshevism - which went
around killing those who would not accept it - and Transformational
Marxism, not called Marxism, as well as psychology, coming out of
Freud and psychoanalysis, and out of behaviorism, promotes only man's
body and man's mind. So man under Marxism and psychology is
spiritually dead. Christ said in Luke 9: 60, "Let the dead bury the
dead." When a statement in scripture says something is not likely or
not possible, then look for its metaphoric meaning. Christ was saying
to let those who are spiritually dead, without a developed human
spirit, bury the physically dead. In Matthew 15: 24 Christ said "I am
not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The entire
house of physical Israel was then spiritually dead; their human
spirits had not been developed by the Holy Spirit. They were living in
the flesh, that is, in their bodies and in their minds. The Pharisees
bragged that they were the physical descendants of Abraham, but Christ
said they did not follow Abraham spiritually.

A dialectic church acts a lot like an encounter group run by a
Transformational Marxist facilitator. Rick Warren, for his Purpose
Driven Church movement, has used small groups, like the more secular
encounter groups under Carl Rogers and others. While many other
churches do not use small groups under facilitators, the dialectic as
used in dialogue is so widespread that many preachers and church
people use it.

The deviant in the cohesive church group, a group in which almost
everyone is following the same man-made theology, is one who always
turns to the scripture for answers, and makes scripture his authority,
rather than to the group which deals with opinions of the word of God
and with how do you feel and what do you think. The "deviant,"
believer, whose authority is "it is written," and not man's theology
and the opinions of the church group, is eventually "extruded" from
the cohesive church group - unless he changes and conforms to the
group. This cohesive church group that regards the believer as the
deviant is based upon a broad way theology and not on a remnant of
Israel view of "it is written." The broad way theology is found in
Matthew 7: 13, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate,
and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be
which go in thereat."

The dialectic church is the cohesive group which is like the small
groups studied and manipulated in the Group Dynamics movement within
American social psychology in the late forties and fifties. Later, in the sixties and seventies, the Encounter Group
movement applied some of the findings of the earlier Group Dynamics
social psychologists, and further developed the dialectic as an
effective attitude change procedure in cohesive face to face groups, a
procedure which has also been used more widely by politicians and the
media more widely than in small face to face groups.

In scripture, there is the Thesis and the Antithesis. God the
Father and his authority over man is the Thesis. Man's flesh, his
human nature, with his spirit not developed by the Holy Spirit, is the
Antithesis.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 14.

The Antithesis can be man in the flesh as natural man making an
argument against the doctrines of Christ in the New Testament, as seen
in Luke 11: 15 and in John 8: 33,39

A facilitator - who can be a clinical psychologist running an
encounter group, a leader of a large corporation, a politician holding
an office, or a preacher in a church - by leading the group - face to
face or not - away from facts and "it is written" to feelings and
opinions by showing enthusiasm for feelings and man;s opinions of
facts and discouraging statements about accurate knowing of facts or
of "it is written." This moves the focus of the group away from a
foundation of facts, accurate knowing and truths (or morality) to
man's opinions.

Man's spirit is encouraged and developed by "it is written" and by a
strong faith in the word of God given to us by the Holy Spirit, not by
dialectic arguments against "it is written" and exalting opinions over
facts.

The dialectic process and its underlying man made philosophy destroys
faith, and runs the Holy Spirit out of one's soul and mind. Dialectic
man claiming to be a Christian then tries to justify himself before man (Luke 16: 14-15) by his deceptive arguments against "it is written."

"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15.And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;" Luke 16: 14-15

The Pharisees, with their dialectic mind, tried to deride Jesus Christ, the Truth who was talking to them.

So in a Christian seminary there is man leaning to his own understanding and more attention is paid to man made theologies and man's opinions of what scripture means than
to scripture itself. This mind set has gone into the churches.

Through the use of the dialectic process man justifies his two part
being, body and mind only, and negates his spirit. In dialoging about
his opinions of facts or opinions of scripture, he affirms what
Proverbs 3: 5 warns against. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart:
and lean not unto thine own understanding." Dialectic man leans to his
own understanding. When this process is fully developed, man lives in
a world of abomination.