authorityresearch.com

The Person, His Deeds, And The Office.

by
Dean Gotcher

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds [Gr. praxis];" Colossians 3:9
The lie being: "Ye shall not surely die," i.e., be held accountable for your "deeds," i.e., praxis. Genesis 3:4
"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Romans 14:12

It is all about the father's/Father's authority, doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, and the child's carnal nature, loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, hating restraint, i.e., hating the father's/Father's authority when it gets in the way. Whether you accept the father's/Father's authority—having faith in the father/Father, i.e., doing the father's/Father's will—or reject it—making your carnal nature, i.e., "human nature," i.e., dopamine emancipation the medium through which right and wrong, i.e., good and evil are determined, i.e., doing your own will instead—you have to make a decision regarding which you will serve at any given moment in life. While this distinction (between the father's/Father's authority and the child's/man's carnal nature) might be lost on those who accept the father's/Father's authority (not thinking about rejecting it, having a guilty conscience when they disobey it instead), it is not lost on those who reject it, i.e., who seek to negate it, i.e., remove it from their lives and the world, so they can do wrong, disobey, sin without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so they can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., so they can think and act according to their carnal desires of the 'moment,' i.e., their impulses and urges of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, with no accountability for their thoughts and actions when they go against established commands, rules, facts, or truth which get in their way.

If the office of the father's/Father's authority is accepted (honored), the child is held accountable for his deeds, i.e., for his doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, engendering a guilty conscience in the child when he does wrong, disobeys, sins against the father/Father. But when the office of the father's/Father's authority is rejected (negated—called "negation of negation," since the father's/Father's authority is negative to the child's nature), then the child is not held accountable for his deeds, i.e., for his doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father, negating his having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning against the father/Father—replacing the guilty conscience, which is subject to the father's/Father's authority with the "super-ego," which is subject to (in sympathy with) the child's deeds ("feelings"). Notice that children tend to lie, i.e., tend to 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their deeds when caught "doing their own thing"—chasing after dopamine emancipation in disobedience to the father—not thinking that they are wrong (or will be caught in the act, i.e., praxis). Such is "human nature," i.e., the praxis of "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue.

When children, through dialogue affirm their carnal nature, i.e., 'justify' their "lusting" after the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' which the world stimulates, their doing something wrong, disobeying, sinning against restraint, i.e., their bad behavior is not judged as being wrong, which is punishable, but as doing things "badly," which is not punishable. On the other hand, the father's/Father's authority, restraining the child's carnal nature, i.e., hurting the child's "feelings" is judged as being wrong, which is punishable. According to dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., "self" 'justification,' i.e., dialogue, this is the difference between being "positive," i.e., being supportive of the child's carnal nature, i.e., being "reasonable," i.e., "rational," and being "negative," i.e., being supportive of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., being "unreasonable," i.e., "irrational." Reality, i.e., what is actual, therefore, resides in the child's carnal nature, i.e., in the child's love of pleasure, which the world stimulates, not in the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which restrains.

"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right')

According to this 'logic,' what is "actual," i.e., 'real' is not found in the father's/Father's authority, restraining the child's carnal nature, but is found in the child's carnal nature, i.e., in the child's "lust" for pleasure (which all children have in common)—'liberated' from the father's/Father's restraints. This 'logic' makes the child and his deeds "right," i.e., "good" and the office of restraint "wrong," i.e., "evil." This is the 'logic' undergirding a political system which 'justifies' the person and his carnal deeds (love of pleasure and hate of restraint—which is common to all) as being "normal," i.e., "good" and the office of the father's/Father's' authority, which restraints, as being "abnormal," i.e., "evil"—seeking to negate the father's/Father's authority in everyone's thoughts and actions so that all might become "normal," i.e., "good," i.e., mentally healthy.

"Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature) "Third-Force psychology is also epi-Marxian in these senses, i.e., including the most basic scheme as true-good social conditions are necessary for personal growth, bad social conditions [obedience to the father's/Father's established commands, rules, facts, and truth] stunt human nature,... This is to say, one could reinterpret Marx into a self-actualization-fostering Third- and Fourth-Force psychology-philosophy. And my impression is anyway that this is the direction in which they are going now." "Only a world government with world-shared values could be trusted or permitted to take such powers. If only for such a reason a world government is necessary. It too would have to evolve. I suppose it would be weak or lousy or even corrupt at first—it certainly doesn't amount to much now & won't until sovereignty is given up little by little by 'nations.'" "The whole discussion becomes species-wide, One World, at least so far as the guiding goal is concerned. To get to that goal is politics & is in time and space & will take a long time & cost much blood." ". . . A caretaker government could immediately start training for democracy & self-government & give it little by little, as deserved." "This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version & the Humanistic. (Better add to definition of "humanistic" that it also means one species, One World.) (Abraham Maslow, The Journals of Abraham Maslow)

While the earthly father and the Heavenly Father are not the same in body (one of the flesh, the other spirit, i.e., holy) their system of authority is the same. By rejecting the system itself, both are negated in the thoughts and actions ("theory and practice") of the children, i.e., of the next generation at the same time—making the children "of and for self" and the world only, i.e., globalists, finding common ground (common-ism) in their "lust of the flesh," "lust of the eyes," and their "pride of life," i.e., "human nature." This is clearly explained in the scriptures.

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16

"Sense experience must be the basis of all science." "Science is only genuine science when it proceeds from sense experience, in the two forms of sense perception and sensuous need, that is, only when it proceeds from Nature." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3)

By simply renaming "the lust of the flesh," "sensuous needs," "the lust of the eyes," "sense perception," and "the pride of life," "sense experience" Karl Marx made man's carnal nature, i.e., "human nature" academically acceptable, i.e., "science," as in "behavioral science," phenomenal, i.e., of the world ("Nature") only. (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) In doing so he made the father's/Father's authority system, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth (Hebrews 12:5-11) the enemy of "the people." According to Marx, whether the father was benevolent of tyrannical did not matter, the system itself had to be negated.

While the benevolent father might not love his children's deeds (behavior), correcting, reproving (chastening) them when they do wrong (in order for them to learn to control and discipline themselves, in order to do right according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth instead), he loves them nevertheless—protecting them, providing for their needs. The tyrannical father on the other hand, behaving like a child—loving the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, hating restraint (being held accountability for his actions)—uses the office of the father's authority to force his children to do what he wants with no regard to what physical and/or emotional harm he is doing to them, holding them accountable to his ever changing (unpredictable and "self"-ish) standards, which excuse, i.e., 'justify' his actions (in his mind), so he can do what he wants, i.e., have his own way with no accountability, i.e., without restraint. He in essence lies to his "self," i.e., dialogues with his "self," convicting his "self" that his deeds are "OK," that he can not help his "self," that he does not need help, and/or that he will not be held accountable for his actions. He does not truly love his children (although he might believe and /or say he does), using (abusing) them for his own carnal pleasure and/or refusing to recognize/treat them as his own, i.e., as his responsibility. Although he recognizes and uses the office of the father's authority—refusing to recognize and accept that he is accountable to a Father above him, who gave him the office in which to serve Him, training up his children in the admonition of the Lord—he uses it for his own carnal pleasures only instead. In short, while dad (and mom) are not perfect—they might be, or might have been tyrants—their office is perfect—having been given to them by God, who is perfect, in which to serve Him. If you reject the office of the father/Father outright, all you have is tyranny, i.e., the nature of the selfish child, which is "of and for self," having no mercy, grace, or forgiveness for others, having only vanity, i.e., "self interest," i.e., "What can I get out of this for me."

"I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity..." "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 1:14; 12:13, 14

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9

The child, by nature enamored with his "self," i.e., loving the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, hating restraint, i.e., hating the father's/Father's authority when it gets in his way, makes pleasure the standard for "right" or "good," and restraint, i.e., pain, which includes missing out on pleasure "wrong" or "evil." By evaluating (aufheben) the world according to his desires, i.e., according to "human nature," the child makes his "feelings," i.e., his carnal nature, i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the moment (dopamine emancipation), which the world stimulates, rather than the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth the medium through which to determine right from wrong, good from evil (Genesis 3:1-6). While the father's/Father's authority is black and white, i.e., doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, engendering a guilty conscience for doing wrong (Romans 7:14-25), the child's world is a world of gray, i.e., a world of 'change,' subject to his "feeling," i.e., his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which is being stimulated by the world, i.e., by the situation—and anyone manipulating it, and therefore him.

The child's nature (in men's bodies) is antithetical to the Father's authority. While men, as children of disobedience, try to 'justify' their "self," God calls their opinion (their 'justification' of their "self," i.e., their love of pleasure and hate of restraint, i.e., their love of "self" and hate of the Father) an abomination.

"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15

"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" Colossians 3:5-10

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 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? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 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 12:5-11

It is this struggle between "self" will and the father's/Father's authority that dialectic 'reasoning' resides, attempting to negate (circumvent, bypass) the father's/Father's authority (which divides between right and wrong) so that all can become "equal" (united) according to the child's carnal nature (love of pleasure and hate of restraint)—that which we all have in common (which is the basis of common-ism). Dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue, i.e., "self" 'justification, i.e., the child's carnal nature is antithetical to the father's/Father's authority. By starting with dialogue, making the child's carnal nature the "ground of being," the world is turned up-side-down, i.e., a "new" world order is created.

"The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority—so he can be his "self" again, carnal, of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, and truth (and threat of judgment for disobedience) came into his life]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life)

"Once the earthly family [with the children humbling, denying, dying to their "self" in order to do their father's will] is discovered to be the secret of the holy family [with the Son, and all following Him humbling, denying, dying to their "self" in order to do His Father's will], the former [the earthly father's authority system, with children having to trust in and obey the father] must then itself be destroyed [vernichtet, i.e., annihilated] in theory and in practice [in the children's carnal thoughts and actions (behavior)—it is here that dialogue becomes the focus of attention, i.e., the means to 'change,' i.e., the means by which the child is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority]." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis #4)

"The life [authority] which he [the child] has given to the object [to the parent, to the teacher, to the boss, to the ruler, or to God—when the child humbles, denies, dies to, disciplines, controls his "self" in order to do their will, thus "empowering" them] sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx, MEGA I/3) In other words, the father's/Father's authority is illusionary, created by the child's submission to it.

"The hatred against patriarchal suppression—a 'barrier to incest,' ... the desire (for the sons) to return to the motherculminates in the rebellion of the exiled sons, the collective killing and devouring of the father," "'It is not really a decisive matter whether one has killed one's father or abstained from the deed,' if the function of the conflict and its consequences are the same." (Herbart Marcuse, explaining Sigmund Freud's histology in his book, Eros and Civilization: a psychological inquiry into Freud)

"To experience Freud [psychology] is to partake a second time of the forbidden fruit ['liberating' "self" from the Father's authority];" (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) "The 'original sin' ['liberating' "self" from the Father's authority] must be committed again: 'We must again eat from the tree of knowledge ['justify' our "self"] in order to fall back into the state of innocence [be free of the Father's authority].'" (Herbart Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A philosophical inquiry into Freud) As Karl Marx put it: "Not feeling at home in the sinful world [in a world where the Word of God is preached and taught, making all men feel guilty for being "human," i.e., for being sinners], Critical Criticism [the child, questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father's/Father's authority, i.e. replacing the preaching, teaching, and discussing of the father's/Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth with the dialoguing of opinions, i.e., the child's carnal desires of the 'moment,' which are stimulated by the world] must set up a sinful world in its own home [making sensuousness , i.e. the child's carnal nature, i.e., the child's love of pleasure and hate of restraint the "drive" of life, and its augmentation the "purpose"]." "Critical Criticism [the child, questioning parental authority, i.e. 'justifying' his carnal desires of the 'moment,' forcing his parents into dialogue] is a spiritualistic lord, pure spontaneity, actus purus, intolerant of any influence from without." (Karl Marx, The Holy Family)

It is in this mix of "feelings," i.e., love of pleasure, i.e., love of "self," love of someone else, love of the world, and love of the office of authority (control) that we find ourselves every day. While God loves us all, he judges us according to our deeds—whether we accept Him as our authority, doing His will or we, doing our own thing, make ourselves God instead—with God retaining His office of authority over us all, whether we like (or accept) it or not. With man, born in sin, love of person and deeds corresponds to pleasure, which the world stimulates, recognizing and serving anyone in the office of authority who keeps pleasure coming his way, hating anyone in the office of authority who insists that he does right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth, which gets in his (pleasures) way.

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:10

"Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." "At one end of the continuum the individual avoids close relationships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end he lives openly and freely in relation to the therapist and to others, guiding his behavior on the basis of his immediate experiencing – he has become an integrated process of changingness." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

Rejecting the either-or (back-white, above-below, right-wrong, saved-lost, i.e., duality) of the father's/Father's authority, focusing upon the ever changing "feelings" of the child instead, right and wrong become subjective, i.e., subject to the spectrum or continuum of the child's "feelings" of the 'moment,' the situation stimulating them, and the one(s) manipulating the situation, i.e., stimulating the child—evaluating and grading his response (in order to control and 'change' him, as is made clear in Kurt Lewin's use of "force field analysis," "unfreezing, moving, refreezing," "group dynamics"). It is along this spectrum or continuum (from the love of the father/Father, doing his/His will on the one side of the spectrum to the love of pleasure, which the world stimulates and hate of restraint on the other) that socialists/'liberals' (those of identity politics) grade you and me. Synthesis, i.e., consensus, i.e., their control of the world can not be achieved without the negation of the father's/Father's authority, i.e., the antithesis. Only by starting with the child's carnal nature, that which all children (and men and women) have in common, making it the thesis, can the father's/Father's authority automatically become the antithesis, i.e., the object (barrier) to be negated, i.e., replaced with a progression of mankind moving away from obedience to authority toward the questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking of it instead, 'justifying' man 'liberating' his "self" from the father's/Father's authority so he—through dialogue 'discovering' what he has in common will all of mankind, arriving at consensus, i.e., synthesis, i.e., affirmation—can become his "self," i.e., "of and for self," i.e., of and for the world only.

"In the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge & Human Interest, Chapter Three: The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)

Therefore, according to this 'reasoning, i.e., dialectic 'reasoning' the mentally healthy are those who hate the father's/Father's authority, i.e., who hate anything that gets in the way of the child's and their carnal nature, i.e., who hate anything that prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks the child and them from enjoying (or thinking about enjoying) the carnal pleasures of the moment,' which the world stimulates, who accept the socialist/'liberal' usurping (taking over) the father's/Father's office of authority instead, negating the father's/Father's authority, occupying it for their "self" (in the name of "the people"—deceiving the naive and ignorant) in order to 'liberate' the children and their "self" from the father's/Father's authority, i.e., from having to do the father's/Father's will, thereby 'liberating' the children and their "self" from having a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning, so they and the children can do wrong, disobey, sin with impunity, i.e., without accountability. The mentally ill, on the other hand (according to dialectic 'reasoning') are those who honor the father/Father, i.e., who recognize his/His office of authority and seek to do his/His will—having a guilty conscience when they do wrong, disobey, sin. They are therefore labeled as being neurotic, maladjusted, lower order thinkers, negative, divisive, hateful, intolerant, unreasonable, irrational, psychological, in denial, out of touch with reality, phobic, racist, etc., needing therapy, i.e., to be converted, censored, or removed from society. According to the psychologist, i.e., the "group psychotherapist," i.e., the facilitator of 'change,' i.e., the Transformational Marxist (all being the same in praxis, dialectic, i.e., dialoguing opinions to a consensus), the pathway to "health" is found the child's carnal nature, i.e., in "self's" love of pleasure (and the world which stimulates it) and hate of restraint, 'liberating' "self" from the father's/Father's authority, placing themselves in the office of authority instead (without accountability), so that all can serve, protect, praise, and worship them as their "savior."

"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 come to ask himself, 'What does it mean to me?'" (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy)

"What we need to learn, it seems, are ways of gaining acceptance for a humanistic person-centered ["self" centered] venture in a culture more devoted to rule by authority ["rule of law"]." (Carl Rogers, Freedom To Learn FOR THE 80'S)

It is here that discussion and dialogue come into play. Discussion, which is formal—based upon doing right and not wrong according to established commands, rules, facts, and truth—is different than dialogue, which is informal—based upon a persons own experience, guided by his love for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates, and his hate of restraint. The father's/Father's authority is based upon preaching, teaching, and discussing (as his discretion) established commands, rules, facts, and truth, holding his children accountable for their actions. The child, according to his nature, loving pleasure and hating restraint, uses dialogue to 'justify' his "self" and get his way. The sequence of events usually goes like this: 1) the father tells the child he can not go out (the father does not like the children who the child wants to go out and play with), 2) the child (liking the children who he wants to go out and play with) responds with "Why?" (in order to get the father into dialogue), 3) the father (not having time to discuss with the child why he can not go out, the child not being able to understand the father's reasoning, and/or the child questioning and challenging the father's authority, i.e., attempting to move the father into dialogue so he can get the father to abdicate his authority so he can go out—there is no father's/Father's authority in dialogue) responds with "Because I said so" (in order to cutting off dialogue) cutting off the child's hope of going out and playing with his "friends." From here on, if the child continues to push the father into dialogue he is in big trouble, i.e., will be grounded or punished (chastened). Therefore the child can either, 1) while not going out, continue to dialogue with his "self," 'justifying' to his "self" why he is right and the father is wrong, basing his decision on his "feelings" of the 'moment,' i.e., his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, 2) go out defying the father's authority, or 3) accepting the father's authority, i.e., obeying the father's commands and rules and accept his facts and truth as given (by faith), i.e., humbling, denying, dying to his "self" (cutting off the dialogue), do the father's will, discussing with his "self" how best to do it.

"The child takes on the characteristic behavior of the group in which he is placed. . . . he reflects the behavior patterns which are set by the adult leader of the group." (Kurt Lewin in Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology of Education)

By placing a child in an environment of 1) preaching commands and rules to be obeyed, teaching facts and truth to be accepted as is (by faith), discussing (at the one in authority's discretion) any questions the child might have (providing there is time, the child is able to understand, and he is not questioning or challenging authority), 2) blessing or rewarding the child who obeys and does right, 3) reproving, correcting, chastening the child who does wrong or disobeys, in order for him to learn to do right and not wrong, and 4) casting out any child who questions or challenges authority, the child has to either humble, deny, die to his "self" in order to do the father's/Father's will, 'justify' his "self," i.e., dialogue with his "self" his love of pleasure and hate of restraint, keeping it to his "self" (so as not to get in trouble) or question and/or challenge authority, being cast out (kicked out of class or school).

"It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately [their desire for approval from "the group" or individuals in "the group" pressure them to abdicate their parent's standards in order to be accepted, i.e., affirmed by "the group"]." "The individual accepts the new system of values and beliefs ['liberation' from the father's/Father's authority, 'liberated' to be his "self" again, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only, as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life] by accepting belongingness to the group." (Kurt Lewin in Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change)

By placing a child in an environment of dialoging opinions to a consensus the traditional minded child, respecting and honoring the father's/Father's authority, will either keep silent (in order to not disobey the father/Father, i.e., go against his father's/Father's will, as well as not be rejected by "the group") or speak out against "the group," defending his father's/Father's authority, being 'labeled' by "the group" as being negative, divisive, intolerant, etc., By his participation in dialogue (with "the group"), what he wanted to do but could not do at home, i.e., question and challenge his father's/Father's authority, he is now 'justified' in doing (with "the groups" approval—affirmation), 'justifying' his questioning, challenging, defying, disregarding, attacking the father's/Father's authority when he gets home.

"There are many stories of the conflict and tension that these new practices are producing between parents and children." (David Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Book 2: Affective Domain)

All of life is about you, your deeds, and your Heavenly Father's authority, i.e., you doing the Father' will. All the rest is vanity, i.e., all about you.

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32, 33

"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." Matthew 7:21

"... and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3

"It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." Proverb. 3: 5-6

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." "Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is." Jeremiah 17:5, 7

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8

"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Proverbs 16:5

"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will, i.e., having to set aside pleasure, i.e., having to humble, deny, die to "self" in order to do the Father's will, i.e., in order to do right and not wrong according the Father's commands, rules, facts, and truth], and desperately wicked [hating God the Father and His authority which "gets in the way," i.e. which prevents, i.e., inhibits or blocks it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment'—which the world stimulates]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 Those of dialectic 'reasoning,' as a child of disobedience ('justifying' their "self") can not see their hatred toward God the Father as being evil because their love of "self," i.e., their love of pleasure—which the world stimulates—is "in the way," blinding them to the truth, i.e., to the deceitfulness and wickedness of their heart, needing a savior.

© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2019