This is a virtual ritual, because it references events entirely confined to cyberspace.
I am a prophet of the God of the Bible. It wasn’t my idea. It’s a claim to divine authority, and the exercise of that authority rests entirely upon the power of God’s Holy Spirit. The end of my authority in that sense is simply delivering the message. Were it left to me and my own resources, I’d say nothing at all. It really doesn’t bother me subjectively, but my spirit is provoked and I cannot remain silent. I’ll do my best to explain with my feeble understanding of what shakes my spirit.
Over the years I’ve relied on Vox Day and the Dread Ilk (the nickname for his online associates) for incisive commentary on events of the day. Their opinions were borne out by subsequent events, showing a fairly accurate analysis and useful predictions. There is a dearth of this among men today, so we treasure all such offerings.
Sadly, Vox and some of the Ilk rely entirely too much on their human powers of reasoning to assess things far beyond mortal ken. Instead of trusting in divine revelation, they take it upon themselves to pronounce judgment over Scripture. Sometimes it’s pretty subtle, such as attempting to confine Scripture under Aristotelian logic, a logic which rejects the very concept of divine revelation. This is the same sin of the Pharisees who worked so hard to crucify the Lord Jesus Christ. Vox claims to follow Jesus, but rejects the entire intellectual background of His teachings. Thus, Vox rejects sound doctrine and chases the false god of his own human reasoning, and too many of the Ilk follow that path. He does so in a very provocative matter, seeking to lead astray those who read his teachings.
I have performed due diligence trying to warn the Ilk. I have seen many others doing at least as good a job pointing out in detail why Vox’s doctrines are heretical. We are ignored or mocked. In case you are wondering, I’m not defending systematic theology, nor traditional church theology itself by any means, but rather the doctrines taught in Scripture. For example Vox sets limits on what the Heavenly Father can know, repudiating a concept commonly labeled “omniscience.” It’s not a debate about the meaning of the term, but a blasphemous rejection of God’s majesty in declaring He cannot know all things.
I’m shaking the dust off my feet. I’m not returning to Vox Popoli, and I suggest to my fellow Christians Vox and these Ilk cannot be regarded as Christians. Nothing more can we do to correct their sin; we turn them over to Satan for correction. We have to step away for the sake of our own missions.
The final warning is not something I would dream up at all, but is straight from Bible teaching: The wrath of God falls upon all sin. The very thing Vox and the Ilk make their god is the very thing which will fail them. My experience with God’s ways leads me to believe sometime in the near future their human wisdom will turn to folly, perhaps on some issue, perhaps with some repetition. I honestly don’t know any specifics, only that I am bound to obey this move of the Spirit.
As always, taking this seriously is entirely a matter of voluntary consideration in your own spirit. I don’t take myself that seriously, and suggest you do the same, but if this message touches you in any way, that’s the moving of the Spirit.
-
-
Contact me:
-
ehurst@radixfidem.blog
Categories
It didn’t take Vox very long to go from denying the omniscience of God to denying the deity of Christ. These positions are not only heretical, they’re idiotic. The first presumes the creation is greater than the Creator. The second makes Jesus out to be a liar and a blasphemer. Sheesh, even the Pharisees, spiritually blind as they were, recognized what Jesus meant when he told them, “Before Abraham was, I am.”
From what I remember, Vox forwarded the idea of voliscience; that God chooses to know what goes on at any time in any time, rather than an automatic omniscience that forces him to know all things at all times, welcome or no.
I think you miss my point, kh123. You’ll notice I emphasized in my post my primary objection is Vox’s insistence on Aristotelian precision, and subjecting Scripture to that epistemology, when it was written under an entirely different epistemology. Nor do I defend omniscience on his terms or any other. Shortly before I wrote this post, Vox pointedly denied God could know all things. He clings to the Aristotelian notion God cannot escape our time element because there is only one reality, while Scripture clearly posits a distinct otherworldly viewpoint, that this reality is a badly broken, dim caricature of what it once was.
“I think you miss my point, kh123. You’ll notice I emphasized in my post my primary objection is Vox’s insistence on Aristotelian precision, and subjecting Scripture to that epistemology, when it was written under an entirely different epistemology. Nor do I defend omniscience on his terms or any other.”
Even a Sadducee would’ve been correct in stating that objects fall to the ground or that we don’t observe the dead coming back to life, regardless of their not being “scientific” or that their primer is that no resurrection or spirit exists. Similarly, someone stating that “X=not X” as a logical fallacy is correct, regardless of if they’re a Marxist eco-furry preaching from a soap box on Castro St. If God’s omniscience isn’t as per the omniderigistes – that is to say, an unwilling knowing of everything everywhere on God’s part – then why would it not be as per the voliscience argument Vox forwards, regardless of Aristotelian lenses.
“Shortly before I wrote this post, Vox pointedly denied God could know all things. He clings to the Aristotelian notion God cannot escape our time element because there is only one reality,…”
This was when and where. Is fairly important if the charge of heresy and the like is going to be brought up.
You can characterize God; you cannot possibly describe His attributes, except as a convenient academic reference point. In the minds of the Hebrew writers, as would be the case for much of the Ancient Near East, all statements about God were characterizations at best. If there is any modern theological concept appropriate, it would be “ineffable” — unknowable, beyond understanding. All systematic theology is speculation. Mine is no better than anyone else’s. To posit the question is “cannot avoid knowing” versus “could know if He chose” is anthropomorphism, as I see it.
That in itself arises from the Hellenized viewpoint, that all things absolutely must be man-centered. This is not at all the biblical viewpoint. In the Hebrew mind, things can be X and not-X at the same time, depending on context, because in this realm of existence, context is everything, and nothing at all is permanent and static. We can do some things here which seem consistent, but you simply can’t rely on it, and certainly not in the sense there could even be objective truth. It goes to the very question of what we can know, such that we can do something about it; this is the fundamental question of epistemology. Hellenists/Aristotelians says this is it. Ancient Hebrews say, “Not so fast.”
This realm is one big lie, and the real truth of things seldom as they appear. Yes, they were aware of the Aristotelian approach in the sense of what reality appeared to be, but never trusted it with the absolute certainty common with Aristotelian epistemology. They wrote into all their thinking that God could intervene at points, and surely would if someone was watching and expecting it. It was an invasion of a higher reality, not something even possible by any power man could wield given an eternity of time and all the wealth necessary to analyze the very last question of physics, etc. We might argue from Aristotle Moses was high on drugs when he saw the burning bush, because how could a bush burn and not be consumed? Moses, though educated in Egypt, also knew his Hebrew roots, and made room in his mind for such things to be acceptable, even if never understood how.
With all the verbiage in those various debates and long threads of comments, Vox portrayed his thinking that there could be no place outside this realm, adhering tightly to Aristotle’s universal continuum. Aristotle admitted there could be gods and such other things he could not perceive, but that they could not possibly be much more than an extension of man’s nature, they could be no more than super-human, restricted in some ways by certain human limitations. Vox’s careful arguments were framed within this frame of reference, so that I understand him saying God cannot be discussed outside that frame of reference. When I and others attempted to point out how this leads to heresy, he refused to answer. Some of the Dread Ilk echoed him and defended his refusal to acknowledge this.
Over time, Vox’s assertions become more and more radical from the what I would teach. Granted, I, too, have been labeled “heretic” — I have no more authority than any of the people who so labeled me. Indeed, I have less in the sense of human authority. Why it matters what I think to you is for you to decide. I’m sure it means nothing to Vox, and I’m not angry or on some warpath. I simply let my readers know I find him utterly unreliable in matters of Christianity. If you want a label, Vox is just a Christian Gnostic, or well on his way to that.