Christians just love to invent pneumatic ideas out of thin, contradictory air in order to support their own subjective interpretive premises. This, of course, is designed to give them the illusion of objectivity. Which these ideas are not and never can be, because in order for something to be objective it needs to conform to observable quantification; and, absent that, it at the very least needs to be logically and rationally consistent. But, these days, “sound” doctrine all too often finds the root of itself in vehemently proclaiming that TRUTH is found in ideas that are at categorical odds with man’s universe and, indeed, his ability to even exist at all. And behind this, I submit is: fear. There is great fear in suggesting that even God Himself must conform to man’s understanding of what is possible and what is not. This somehow gets interpreted as “claiming to understand God”; or ever worse, “claiming to dictate to God the terms of His relationship with Creation”. This, of course, is rank nonsense and speaks to that most popular of all Christian traditions: passive thinking.
All I am suggesting is that, since all of man’s relationship with God MUST occur within the context of MAN, because, by definition, man can never understand nor form a frame of reference to God’s context, because His context is HIMSELF, that all of how God interacts with man and all of what is truth and what is relevant between God and man must indeed be thoroughly and objectively attainable to the human mind. And the way we can then objectively declare truth then is found in consistency of reason. ANYTHING that is antithetical to man’s existence, or what is contradictory to God’s ability to have created a consciousness that is NOT GOD, demands that it must be thoroughly rationalized according to MAN’S objective reason before being accepted. This is why I currently deny, vociferously, the popular understanding of election and biblical inerrancy…and, every point of Calvin’s despicable TULIP, among others. Any doctrine which declares man wholly irrelevant to the relationship in deference to God’s sovereignty denies the essential logical truth that enables man to exist: IF man is NOT fully the function of His will, then He is at the mercy of something else NOT man. If this something else is God, God then becomes the Creator of sin; or, evil is a lie because there can be no moral distinctions if everything IS GOD. If this is some other force, such as “sin nature” or “God’s election”, or “justification”, or “positional righteousness”, then man cannot be judged morally culpable for anything, because there can be no rational boundary between man that is man and man that is some other FORCE. Any time man is operating under the control of something outside of himself, he can never be held accountable for his actions, period. Either man is ALL free will, or he is all OTHER FORCE. It is a zero sum equation. Man is either himself or he is not, and there is only one context: existence. There isn’t a “justification” context and a “sanctification” context whereby God views man practically and functionally different. Both are aspects of a free relationship predicated upon the idea that each participant freely consign themselves to it as a singular function of their very ability to THINK. Man cannot be divided up into areas where he IS, while occupying the same a place he is NOT at the same moment. Just as God is ONE, so is man merely one; there is man, period. Man is what he viscerally is. Anything that denies this claims abstraction as physical reality. And this idea of a separate man being in the “justification” realm and another being in the “sanctification” realm makes man a mutually exclusive schizophrenic. And this is where the Calvinists, for all of their false and abysmal ideas, are at least consistent. They understand that man cannot be outside himself in justification, and inside himself in sanctification. Even they see this as the rational nonsense that it is. They thus simply yank man out of the equation altogether, and this is why they are so damn abusive. You can’t abuse people because people aren‘t real.
But I choose to go the opposite way. The way that is rational, philosophically provable, physically quantifiable/observable…the way that is legitimate to LIFE. The way that says man must be categorically and completely a function of his OWN sovereign will, all the time. At any point he is not, man is not himself, and the whole faith crashes to the ground with the smacking of abused and dead carcasses like the birds upon the Israelites in the desert. No matter how good the intentions. My idea is not fusing justification and sanctification. This is observing existential reality. My idea recognizes both concepts within the framework and context of a single, fully functional human being. That is, the concepts are separate, but MAN, the arena of application, is not. And that being the case, BOTH concepts are dependent on man’s free and unfettered WILL.
Man cannot be, by definition, partly in full control of his fragmented but complete will. This is pure nonsense; but there are those who “church it up” to make it sound convincing and logical. This is the very old mystic art of propagandizing one’s perspective. I mean, sure, it sounds great to declare: “No one can lose their salvation”, and “Anything that makes man’s salvation dependent on anything involving him is “works” salvation”, but it just isn’t true. I agree that man cannot “accidentally” lose his salvation, or “sin his way” out of his salvation. Truly, as long as a person WANTS his or her salvation she or he has it because she or he is no longer a function of the Law. There is no “law” they can break to lose their salvation. But if salvation is consciously rejected as a function of the volitional will, then salvation ceases to apply because if it did it could only apply at the EXPENSE of the person involved; or IN SPITE of them, not FOR or BECAUSE of them. There is no way to save a person who has willfully, purposefully rejected salvation because then it can no longer be for that person. It has to circumvent the person in order to save them. And this is metaphysically impossible. Because you cannot SAVE what is NOT THERE.
Man is a conscious being, is self aware, and ALL things thus involving HIM must involve his very consciousness. His very consciousness rests in the metaphysical necessity that is his ability to WILL; to apprehend, to abstract, to desire, to choose. Not even election can trump that. The nature of the relationship between man and God is always and forever under the auspices of each one’s personal WILL and CHOICE, from now unto eternity. ANY theological premise or doctrine which denies this is logically false, and thus MUST concede contradiction as its foundational argumentative premise.