I know that I have advertised that my site will be dedicated to dismantling the faulty and contradictory metaphysical premises of Calvinism and reformed theology in general. In order to do this, certain philosophical foundations must be laid. With the posts on “ability” what I am trying to do is convey the idea that in order for man to exist as a creation of God, he MUST be fully able in and of himself. The preceding posts are an explanation of HOW that is. Coming up will be a focus on WHY. If we don’t start with how, though, the why is of little use. But the why is very, very important. As I said, the root of all of this will be to not just to show, but to prove that reformed theological assumptions are simply not metaphysically possible, and that by applying them, we both undo God and man. Of this, I am thoroughly convinced.
Now, I recognize that many of you have already arrived at the conclusions regarding the inconsistency of Calvinist theology, and its fallacy as evidenced by the disastrous practical consequences it inflicts upon the masses. But dismantling their metaphysics/philosophy by using your OWN to prove them wrong, though, will eliminate the single greatest tool the Calvinist demagogues have: their ability to define the interpretive premises of every debate…the doctrine that drives the actions.
Notice how almost every argument you engage in with a Calvinist starts with you assuming their very metaphysical premises (e.g. man is sinful at his root/total depravity; cannot do “good” until after conversion; has a “free” will driven by an external “sin” nature (thus, making it not free at all), “original sin”, predestination/free-will paradox, and thus, free will must always give way to God’s greater power of “control”, that God functionally “controls” His creation, and “creates” futures that we just walk through, or not, according to His whim…and on and on). Once we explain why we will no longer concede their faulty premises by countering with our own better metaphysical premises that they must accept, dismantling the doctrine and marginalizing their theology should be elementary.
Now, one final thing. In my blog I will soon (once the posts on ABILITY are finished…which, the one below this post should be the last I have to say on the matter, unless some astute reader poses a great question or objection; incidentally, a LOT of what I just wrote on the matter came from a great bit of constructive criticism to a post of mine by Nick from Scotland over at the Wartburg Watch…many thanks to him)…anyway, I will next unravel the free-will/election “paradox”. I will prove that these doctrines are not paradoxical, but are, in fact, symbiotic. That is, one drives the other; they cannot exist apart, and THAT is why you see them throughout the Bible.
Now, many view this as a futile endeavor…a secondary issue at best, a paradox we have to live with. However, I could not disagree more. It is a primary issue of the greatest import, in that by dismantling it, and showing how both are not simply metaphysically true but both MUST (and yes, free will) be true will, I believe, amount to the single greatest blow to reformation theology that is out there. If it can be metaphysically proven that man MUST have free will, then everything from total depravity to inability to “election” crumbles.
It all started with a little conversation I had with a friend when I was 18 (more like an argument). This discussion was forgotten for many years, until recently, where musing extensively on it has culminated in a theory I call: Retroactive Inevitability of Choice.