As we move to unravel the seemingly contradictory co-existence of the doctrines of election (or predestination) and free will (man’s unlimited volition of the self), it is important to state what I think will be a natural question for most readers at the end of the entire essay:

How can God do that?

Let me say this in preemptive response:  That is not the right question.

When we move to questions of “how” God does something in regards to a given doctrine we have come to a place where contradiction (I submit that election/free will are not paradoxical doctrines, but contradictory, thus, this is the term I will use…more on this later) is no longer contradiction.  It is not contradictory to say that God can do something from a power which human beings do not understand.  On the contrary, that is categorically reasonable. For no one can understand the “how” of God’s omnipotence; but it is the “why” which we must understand.  If we can reduce our doctrines down to the “how” of God’s power, we will have effectively unlocked whatever contradictions may be found in any given doctrine; and what remains is merely the power of God to do what man cannot do.

This fact is obvious and perfunctory.  For we all know we are here, for example, and before we were not here, and the only way we as Christians can explain it is to conclude that God can do something we cannot do: create something from nothing; call something that is not, IS.  And the explanation of God’s power of doing, then, is always going to be “because He is God”; because in order for us to understand it, God’s power would need to conform to the laws that guide our creation and existence…and this is not possible.  So, being in the place of not knowing “how” God’s power works is reasonable and, moreover, must metaphysically be the case.

But being in the place where we do not understand “why” is not reasonable; and we should never accept not knowing as an answer for questions concerning the “why” of our doctrines, particularly when those doctrines, without a reasonable metaphysical explanation, are impossibly contradictory.  And moreover, even if we do not know why we don’t know something specifically, we must be able to reasonably explain WHY we don’t know why according to reasonable metaphysics.  I know this seems tediously semantic, but there is a huge distinction.  What I’m saying is that the answer to the “why” can never be: because He is God.  “Because He is God” is an answer metaphysically reserved exclusively for the “how” of God’s power.

I might have gotten ahead of myself.

Okay, let’s go back to the start, after having said all of that.

First, for frame of reference purposes, let me summarize what I consider man’s reason for those of you who have not had a chance to read the post on Ability.

Man’s reason is what I refer to as the soul of man; the chief ABILITY (what I consider the reference ability), which is the core of man’s being; the IS which can never be made NOT.

Okay, now, moving on.

To acknowledge that God has a power to act and create which is beyond man’s reason—beyond his capacity to apprehend—is metaphysically reasonable.  I would argue that it is in keeping with the very essence of reason to recognize that man cannot comprehend how God does what he does.  For we have no frame of reference from which to understand how God acts.  That is, I mean literally we have no place, either tangible or abstract, to even begin to understand.  That being the case, the question of how God acts is the end of the search, itself.  The question serves as its own answer: how God acts is how God acts.  Not knowing is the only reasonable knowledge man can have for the question of how God does what he does.  It is beyond our context, senses, and soul to know.  It is beyond relevance, as well.

Let me say that last part again:

It is beyond relevance to know how God does what he does.

Therefore, if it is not relevant to man, then there is no reason God would grant that it is within man’s ABILITY to understand it.  If He did, He would be perpetrating an act of redundancy which, in light of His perfection, is metaphysically impossible. Thus, resolving all contradictions down to the “how” of God’s power is in fact resolving the contradiction down to a perfectly logical metaphysical answer.  In short, if all that remains is “how”, then we have succeeded in reasonably explaining the doctrine.  There is no longer any contradiction.

As an aside, now would be a good time to mention that I understand there are those of you who are reading this who are saying to yourselves “It’s a paradox.  A paradox is NOT a contradiction.”  I beg to differ…not in the definitions, but in how the word paradox is applied.  In the faith sense, there can be no paradox, there can only be a lack of understanding.  Of course, people do not like to admit a lack of understanding, so “paradox” is much easier to feed the laity and the seekers than “contradiction”.  Contradiction raises eyebrows of doubt and cynicism.  Paradox sounds heady and intellectual.  Appealing to all the people in all the right ways, ostensibly.  The intellectuals nod and say, “Good word.  Heady.  Yes…a paradox.”  Those who do not lean towards intellectualism say “Good enough for me.  Sounds complicated.  But I understand that God is God and can do anything.”  (Which, no, He can’t, but more on that later.) So paradox has been the word to mask the contradiction for as many centuries as the issue has been debated.  If you look up “paradox” in the dictionary, I submit that none of the definitions proffered is true for the co-existence of election and free will.  It has never been found to be anything but contradictory in any discussion when  you get to the root of the matter.

Our religion is either true or it’s not.  Its premises are either rational or they are not.  And appeals to God’s omnipotence do not make contradictions paradoxes.  Contradictions are contradictions until they aren’t.  And they are not only when reason says they are not.

The ability to understand why God does what he does is arguably the MOST important function of man’s inherent reason; because the “why” will always apply to man.  What do I mean by this?  It sounds a little “man-centered” doesn’t it?  And isn’t “man-centered” doctrine purely heretical? If it’s not “all God”, then surely the theology must be errant at its core.  Well, I’ll leave it to the reader to decide what they would like to consider heretical (cries of heresy don’t matter so much to me), but what I mean is that all of God’s relevance to US, which is to say, all of God’s functional relevance,  is because of US.  The things about God that are not relevant to US are not our concern at all…for we couldn’t understand them should we want to, and frankly, we shouldn’t want to because it is an utterly futile pursuit. But what is absolutely true, and what so many are so terrified to admit is that the only reason God is relevant to us is because we exist, not because God exists.  And if that is the case, then everything we know about God MUST in some way have to do with our existence…in how WE are defined, in what WE think, and in what WE do.  Outside of that, God is functionally useless to man.  This is not to diminish His importance.  Of course not!  He is God.  But His being God is only important to us in light of our own being; our own life as humans who have been intentionally created by Him with the sole idea behind our creation being that we have been granted our own lives that we must be free to live, and God’s purpose is to show us how we are to do that for our own sakes, in light of His perfection and love.  And because the aspects of God that have nothing to do with us are by definition beyond our capacity to apprehend, the only relevance God can have must have to do with us existing.  Christianity is, then, metaphysically man-centered, not God centered.  God does not need man to be perfect, God does not need anything in creation to be what He is.  He is utterly and completely Himself, within Himself.  Nothing can add to God at all; that is the metaphysical definition of God.  NO need of any kind outside of One’s self.  Any act of creation by God is done out of one reason and one reason alone:  love.  Thus, our relationship is free to be all about us (in light of Him) because God needs nothing from us.

I recognize that this idea warrants a date with the burning stake in some fundamentalist reformed circles.  No matter how well the metaphysics laud, prove, and point to God’s unequivocal omnipotence and mercy beyond anything the neo-Calvinist crowd’s false doctrines can approximate, these nihilist gnostics will declare it arrogant and proud and all of the other heinous things they swear is to blame for Katrina and post-modernism and gay marriage and dying humpback whales and every other banal cliche their narrow minds can conjure up as an insult.

So, yes, I know them and their vitriol.  But beyond the doctrinally insane, I also know that too many other Christians who are supposed to stand in awe of God’s stark power and stability have decided that His sensibilities are so delicate that we dare not speak of what we know deep down must be true.  The truth is, though, that this is not what God wants: timid followers who invent false doctrine and put on patronizing displays of pure groveling (no matter how well-intentioned) that some in the neo-Calvinist camp irrationally equate with true humility. Instead, God wants us to understand that we are important.  What we think and know and do is important to Him, and makes a real and functional and tangible difference in creation and in the existence of ourselves and in others…that nothing is determined beyond our own free acts in our lives.

He understands His place in our lives.  We exist to be free, to be ourselves; that is the point of our creation to begin with; God doesn’t need Himself in His creation; by definition He IS, and is ALL Himself.  And we cannot be free to be ourselves if we build our faith around an idea of God that cannot possibly have a thing to do with human beings.  Christianity is not all about God; it is about people who exist as creatures of God… or it is pointless.  If Christianity is primarily about God and not about man in light of God, apart from God, then God has performed a redundant act, and thus, He is not metaphysically or logically perfect, and therefore, He’s is not God.

Understanding the “why” of the ways and truths of God, then, are necessary for God to be God.  Without a grasp of the “why”, man has no practical use for God.  And so “paradox” or contradiction can never be used to explain the “why”.  The lack of an explanation that adheres to the metaphysically reasonable truths of man’s particular existence can only then exist in our faith once the line is crossed from what is relevant about God to man, to what is NOT relevant about God to man. That is where you find the “how”—at the level of God’s omnipotence.  At the place where no man can find understanding because it is impossible for him to grasp it by his innate reason; and this because, again, it is a frame of reference that is outside the ability of man to exist (man cannot metaphysically BE in the place where that question can be discovered by him…thus, THIS is where we will find a true paradox, if there can be said to be one).   Therefore: “How does the act of God create the result (e.g. how does God do what He does)?” has no answer for man, because, again, the only metaphysically reasonable answer is no answer at all.

Now, if we concede that election and free will are both true, and are stated as clearly true in scripture, the questions regarding how these seemingly contradictory doctrines exist together cannot be rooted in “how” but only “why” as far as unraveling the metaphysical problem goes.  And by that I mean there must be a metaphysically reasonable answer to the question:  Why are they both true, and both in the Bible, even though they are ostensibly contradictory?

Moving on.

What we have done here in separating the “how” from the “why” of the problem is the first step.  It is also the easiest.  Resolving the “why” of the contradiction takes a LOT of work.

When I have discussed this issue with others and expressed my determination to resolve this glaring doctrinal contradiction at its metaphysical root—a contradiction which has wreaked havoc upon the Christian faith for centuries and destroyed countless lives through “election’s” most egregious application, found most relentlessly and dogmatically applied in neo-Calvinism—I was often met with this reply:  “People have been debating that for centuries.”

This is a common statement; not just aimed at me, but at anyone who thinks about the question beyond a superficial acknowledgement of the “paradox”.  It is also an irrelevant statement.

What they say when they declare that the debate has been going on for centuries and what they mean are two entirely different things.  What they say— that is the words—ultimately means nothing.  When they say that great scholars have been debating this question for centuries, the only sensible reply is: so what?   For clearly, what those words “people have been debating that for centuries” reasonably amount to is zero.  How long had people been debating whether or not man could fly until the Wright brothers put an end to the debate?  How long had people been debating whether an atom could be split until the city of Hiroshima was turned to dust in an instant?  How long had people been debating that the world was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe?  And it is my guess that people will be debating whether Christ is the One true Messiah up until the very moment He returns in glory with a sword in his mouth.

You see my point?

Debates of any philosophical or scientific significance have always gone on for long periods of time.  This is nothing new.  This fact only serves to highlight the gravity of the questions, and the interest they compel in people who understand the importance of such issues.

So, the real question isn’t in that statement…that is, the superficiality of the words alone.  What people mean when they utter the statement “people have been debating that for centuries” is that there is no answer to the problem.  The answer is found, thus, in the fact that there has been none found, strangely enough.  And what this means is: there is NO answer whatsoever to that question.  It is true simply because it’s in the Bible, and there is little if anything more to it than that.

The “why” of the doctrine is effectively answered with a shrug.  What people say are the words “they’ve been debating that for centuries; the greatest minds have found no consensus…who can understand God’s ways?”.  What they mean is the shrug.  Thus, we are left to conclude that the shrug is how Christians have resolved the contradiction of “how can God both singularly determine the final outcome of every single human life He created and yet hold man morally culpable for his choices…to the tune of an eternity in hell?”

This is the sum of our so-called superior faith’s philosophical and metaphysical answer to that inestimable question.  The shrug.  And we wonder why, in this ever increasingly skeptical and cynical world, Christianity in America is on the decline and looks more and more like dubious mysticism than it does a world philosophy of merit.  And where it isn’t viewed this way, the hordes of spiritual despots and pseudo-intellectual “yes men”—neo Calvinists masquerading as “gospel-centered” men of “humility”—are trampling humanity under hoof and spear with utter remorseless relentlessness, pulling dollar after dollar from the bodies they fling indifferently to the ditches.  And the rest of us, even though we believe what we believe with every good intention, have contented ourselves with answering perhaps the most fundamental questions of our faith with this: “Because it’s in the bible, and the bible is infallible”.  Or “because God says so. God said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it.”  And so the “why” of arguably the core of our religion (Why is man morally culpable in light of “election”?)  is found in a resounding and glittering impossible contradiction, resolved only by shrugging our shoulders and conceding that beyond all the talk of love and grace and mercy and sacrifice lay nothing more than plain old fashioned fatalistic determinism.

Yes, with one shrug we rip the Bible to shreds, declare God useless to man, make a mockery of the cross of Christ, and define man as an irrelevant episode in a sea of cosmic irrelevancy.

So, I submit that it is immeasurably dangerous to continue to allow contradiction to define our faith, because if it does, then our faith becomes only as strong as the contradiction.  The abdication of reason cannot be a foundation of our relationship with God because God is defined by that same reason!  If we declare reason null and void in any doctrine that concerns us and Christ then we declare God Himself null and void to us! (This is one of the points I make in my post on Job.)  God cannot ever be defined contrary to the rational truths that make our very existence possible; and even HIS existence in light of our existence.  As I have declared before:  a violation of man’s reason is a violation of God Himself.  Thus, we must resolve the contradictions.  If we want to appeal to God’s power as the reason for the contradiction then we must resolve with reason the “why” and reduce the question to a question of the “how” of God’s power.  And again, the “how” needs no explanation because it does not matter to man.  If it did matter, we would possess the ability to apprehend it.  But it doesn’t, and so we don’t, because if we did, God is the creator of redundancy; and that is impossible.

We MUST resolve the contradiction.  Claiming the inability of man to comprehend “why” God does what He does is the very opposite of worshiping the One True God because it makes Him moot; thus, no worship is needed or even useful.  For if we content ourselves to include contradictions of “why” questions in our faith, then faith ceases to be faith and becomes, instead, suspension of disbelief.  And what this means is that there is no longer anything reasonable to our faith.  Instead, our faith is based on what can only be described as the very antithesis of how we know essentially everything else in our world; things we must know in order to survive and thrive.  So, in the one issue—the most important part of our mortal existence: our worship of the Creator—we find belief in Him defined by an impossible contradiction  that resembles nothing like the conceptual truths we know exist; and it is a contradiction which can have no bearing on the rational truths and laws we use to organize our world; and also, incidentally, to apply the commands and instructions of our Lord.

So in light of that fact, does the Christian appeal to metaphysical contradiction then make sense to anyone?  Does it make sense that at the core of our faith is a contradiction that stands opposed to the rational laws and truths of our world and universe?  A world and a universe which HE DESIGNED to be governed distinctly by NON-contradictory truths, LOGICAL cause and effect concepts, and RATIONAL natural laws of physics and chemistry?

In order to keep to God’s very design of our own reality, Christians must strive to find a metaphysically reasonable explanation of every “why” question we find in our faith.  If any “why” question falls outside of reason, then Christian Metaphysical and Epistemological Truth Number 3: “A violation of man’s reason by God is a violation of Himself” is in effect

(Incidentally, Truth Number One: God will not create a thing to do something He can better do Himself; which is everything; and Number Two: Nothing exists in the future until it is in the present; there is no future until it is the present, and once it is in the present it moves directly and irrevocably to the past, where it is, was, and will be forever inevitably fixed in time).

Again, the question we are presently concerned with, once again:

“Why is there both election/predestination and free will of man expressed as functional, applicable biblical truths together, and co-existing in Scripture, when they are ostensibly metaphysically and logically contradictory?”

Let me make this next point very clear, because I understand how tempting an argument God’s power can be for everything we decide we don’t and can’t understand:

Appealing to God’s omnipotence is NOT a reasonable answer to that question.  “Because He is God” is a non-answer; completely useless, patronizing, lazy, and a terrible exegesis of scripture; and dreadfully destructive to both the believer and the lost. In pointing to God’s power, we are attempting to answer a “why” question as if it were a “how” question (how is God able to both predestine and hold man culpable for his own choices?).  This is logical nonsense.  This cannot possibly be.  There has to be a reasonable, no-nonsense metaphysical and logical answer to the “why” question, and it must be addressed as a “why” question, NOT a “how” question.

The question itself is not inconsistent; the scriptural treatment of the doctrines is not inconsistent.  Therefore, our explanation of it must also NOT be inconsistent.  Logical consistency is demanded for all “why” questions of our faith.  In other words, if reason does not define the metaphysics and philosophy of our faith from back to front, then Christianity can no longer be claimed by any believer to be TRUTH; and certainly no more truth than any other religion.  The believer can no longer claim to know that he/she knows.  The statement “I can’t prove it, but I know it’s true” becomes a farce once you concede metaphysical contradiction in your faith…once you surrender reason, you surrender your claim to a rational belief in what you “know” to be true and how you know it.

Just think for a moment.  How do you know anything you know?

Here’s the answer:

Reason.

You reason that it is true!  It isn’t blind faith.  On the contrary,  you recoil when non-Christians accuse you of such superficial hope as blind faith. But if your response to the world’s tough doctrinal questions is merely sanctimonious circular argument when compared to all of the logic and reason that define the laws of our very existence, the world, and universe, then how in heavens can you claim to know that you know?  Thus, the only reason you can ever know you know anything is because of your ability to reason; your ability to grasp conceptual, abstract truth.  Your REASON…your understanding of the fact that you can know what you know is only because it makes rational sense to your mind and soul!  So I ask, how can we claim this kind of answer—“I know that I know”—and then  rush headlong into rank doctrinal hypocrisy with lightning speed when confronted with a difficult metaphysical question like predestination versus free will; and, in startling irony, proceed to argue our doctrinal perspective by conceding that it is actually impossible that we can know anything at all?

And we wonder why the world thinks Christians are weak-minded. We claim to have the salvation of the world and the Spirit of the All Powerful God in our very bodies—that we are a temple of the living God—and yet we cannot even escape from our own logical inconsistency; our own irrational answers for the most important issues and doctrines of the faith.

Fatalistic determinism; irrelevancy of man and God; salvation without salvation; perfunctory and redundant sacrifice of God the Son; the idea that the Cross does not make election possible but that election makes the Cross, if it needs to have a place at all, a mere obligatory and bloody sideshow in the timeline of man’s pointless existence…all of these issues are wiped away with a gesture of doctrinal shrugging and dead-eyed indifference at best. And at worst, the non-logic and pointless platitudes of: “Who can understand His ways?”  I cannot believe these answers don’t make every skeptic declare to the masses in broad daylight that Christianity a farce .

And by the way, the answer to that question, “Who can understand His ways” is this: Apparently no one, not even God; for if election is true, then it must be arbitrary.  (Yes it must.  ALL men are equally vile.  “There is none who choose God; not even one”.  There is nothing in man that would set one apart from the other, thus God cannot have even His own reason; for His own reason should tell Him that all men are equally sinful, thus, there is no logical rationale for “electing” one over the other.)

So, we as Christians concede with our appeal to God’s power that we understand nothing of our own philosophy.  Now, that may say “piety” to some Christians, but what it says to the question-asking world is this: Christians do not possess the most basic logical consistency with which to ward off a metaphysical impossibility so glaring that any a ten year old with a good grasp of common sense could dismantle it utterly in the time it takes his mommy to grill a cheese sandwich.

To begin to conclude this segment of my essay, I want to be clear about my intent for the forthcoming essay:  I will answer definitively the “why” of these doctrines.  I will identify and argue fully my reason-based defense of the symbiosis of these doctrines, predestination and free will of man.

I am not doing this out of a desire to simply “break new ground”, but for the sake of working towards the goal of creating a completely reasonable answer for our faith, based on metaphysical logic…that we may truly give an answer for our what we believe and the hope that we have, with a logical philosophical rationale.  This, I submit, is impossible with the current “orthodox” understanding of the issues.

I will answer the “why” of the simultaneity of election and free will…why they are both true, because they must both be true to be in keeping with metaphysical reason; and why they are not  contradictory but work together in a dependent relationship, which takes both the free will of man and the omnipotence of God into account.

I will dismantle and destroy the false contradictory doctrine that currently surrounds this question, and in doing so will prove than man has full volition in accordance with God’s omnipotence and foreknowledge, not in opposition to it.

This is something which must be done, and should have been done a long time ago, frankly.  It is to our shame as Christians that we have allowed such important core doctrines of our faith to be so misinterpreted for centuries, much to the detriment of humanity and to the maligning of God’s perfect, infallible, inerrant power.  It has been put upon the shelf of incoherent mysticism for far too many eons.

“Why do you believe what you believe?”

This is the root question of every question that is asked of us as Christians.  For far too long this question and others has been answered with nonsensical appeals to God’s divinity, whims, capriciousness, purely arbitrary will, man’s ignorance and stupidity, God’s vacillating and aimless acts of random omnipotence…all of that, and culminating with the false label of “paradox”.  And all of these so-called answers are merely masks for the one true answer which runs through them like spiritual formaldehyde through a cadaverous interpretation of our doctrine; an answer as embarrassing as it is anemic:

“I don’t know.”

And if this is our response—a NON-response—to this eternally important question, then how can we expect to give “an answer for the hope” that we have?!  It seems to me that it’s rather obvious that one cannot satisfy a question if one has no answer to give.  And appealing to contradiction or shrugging our shoulders in metaphysical and theological surrender to what should be seen as the most perfunctory question of our faith (how is man culpable AND God omnipotent), again, is not an answer.  It is, to be blunt, madness.

I apologize if I have offended (oh…I heartily include myself in my harsh assessment of our apologetics on this matter; remember I was a young, restless and reformed drone for years upon years; I blame only myself), but the fact of the matter is that when we agree to giving circular logic or equivocation as an answer for the hope we have to those who live in the world of reason—who can see cause and effect with their very eyes and feel its truth permeate their very existence, and recognize that they have a mind apart from God and the rest of creation—we come across as insane.  And that makes Christianity about as attractive to non-believers as the philosophy of a babbling child (if not more dangerous).  At best, we come across as ones who can offer the suffering in this world nothing but more suffering in the form of confusion.  This confusion may be seen by some potential converts as a “spiritual” and “enlightened” escape, but for most, they see it for the snake oil that it is.

We ask for everything and offer nothing; and then we have the gall to compound this nonsense with the mixed approach of the new Calvinists, where the theology makes perfect the demanding of blind obedience and emotional submission, and decrees ecclesiastical ownership of each follower’s personal property.  And this brainwashing and larceny of the soul and the wallet are done with the lording of “church discipline” (i.e. tyrannical threats) hanging over the heads of the sheep like pianos on dirty, fraying rope.

This “discipline” is, in truth, the worst sort of emotional and psychological torment imaginable: the mystic.  But it is hard to ascribe a moral value to behavior that is supported by doctrine that makes absolutely no appeal to reason or rational consistency.  And lest those of us who categorically reject Calvinist hedonism become too comfortable in pointing fingers, we must realize that when we do not use reason to resolve the contradictions in our own beliefs, we are only slightly better.

In light of this, who can blame the majority from turning on their heels and mocking us in scorn?  And if a non-answer is our answer, those who mock us and see us as pointless lunatics are not wrong.  Because they have seen that due to our inability to make rational sense of what we believe, our faith becomes utterly irrational at the place where it matters most:  the practical application of it.  We apply it, as they see it, like an infant excitedly tearing out the pages of a book with pudgy, random fists because he hasn’t the first clue as to what he is really supposed to do with it.

And truly, this is what we are like when we attempt to apply our faith and yet cannot explain, in light of “election”, why we apply it.  By that I mean:  what is the point to applying a faith that has already had its predetermined impact upon our spiritual and eternal life? For, in light of this view of election, the only answer is, again, a non-rational one:  There IS no practical reason to do ANYTHING at all…for election IS determinism.  That is ALL it is when we subscribe to traditional orthodox views of the doctrine.  So, again, what are we really able to offer the wanting world?  Only this: A faith based on a philosophy which can in no way help to practically organize or explain the world in which humanity struggles.

With an understanding of who is watching us and who we are to reach out to and love–the lost–by divine, Messianic commission, how can we as Christians live any longer as people who have no moral problem with allowing functionally irrational, impotent theology to define our faith and our philosophy?

We seem to have zero problem with the poor metaphysics of what we believe…and this is shocking.  For vain philosophy is what we are commanded by Paul to avoid!  And what is a faith defined by contradiction and nonsense if not vain?!   But, alas, in bed with the purveyors of vain philosophy (reformed churches, new Calvinist preachers, among others) is precisely where we find ourselves.  We are taught by our gnostic, authoritarian, “divinely inspired” oligarchs to EXPECT and to DESIRE the root doctrines of our Christian faith to be logically desperate.  The more metaphysically impossible the better!  The more irrational the more you are approved by God as being “spiritually minded”!  Again, this is madness.

We accept, consciously or subconsciously, that forsaking reasonable truth makes us “good” followers of Christ (read: good followers our gnostic “superiors”).  We are happily going about proclaiming loudly and proudly that incongruent and dissonant understanding of ourselves and God and holding relentlessly to contradictory doctrine is in fact a prerequisite for following Christ; that we, if we want to be approved by God, must somehow recognize that the way to get truth is to agree that we can never know truth; and that God acts in ways which cannot be defined as “truth” by man because man cannot even know his own, immediate, reasonable conceptual truths; and that the cause and effect constructs we apprehend by our ability to reason, and which makes our existence and the organization of our world possible, is either an illusion or is irrelevant (or both), and that our ability to reason—our ability to grasp rational truths that govern the universe and our interactions with it—is really spiritual depravity (our “sin nature”) and as such, is dead to God.

And this being the case, I understand completely the resistance I will face when attempting  to appeal to reason as the basis for our faith…the platform upon which our understanding of God and man and the relationship between them stands, and stands strongest.  Yes, I understand the difficulty that defines encroaching on the members of the “hope-at-the-expense-of-reason” church orthodoxy; and how of all the people in the world, the irrationally religious are those most likely to resort to the churlish depths of “worldly” attitudes and violent reactions, throwing aside with startling speed their views on the sanctity of life when their beliefs are challenged by the “heretics”.  Indeed, the bloodlust which is deeply rooted in these contradictory doctrines, and which bubbles to the surface when pricked by a strong counter viewpoint, is enough to unnerve even the bravest of personalities.   And the irony we Christians cannot see as we appeal to God as the foundation of our philosophical insanity, and the irony of the comparison of our own incomprehensible doctrines to Godliness and life, is that we often conclude that they are part and parcel of God’s divine purpose.

There aren’t words to describe this kind of nonsense.

But the idea that man has no faculty of reason at all by which he may independently grasp truth means that there can be no purpose of God for man whatsoever, and that man’s only purpose then is to be God for Him, as an extension of Himself, come heaven or hell; which also means that God can have no rational purpose for even HIMSELF as far as man is concerned, because man’s entire existence is irrelevant to the core.

So yes, I understand the difficulty to be found in this endeavor.  I understand how hard it is to convince people of faith through reason in light of the things which they assume to be orthodox…and, to them, orthodox means biblical, and biblical means infallible, which is equal to God Himself.  Yes, it is difficult indeed to reason with such a mindset.  A mindset that says the only way to live is to deny your own physical senses which feed the building blocks of truth to your mind, and then declare, contrary to what Jesus teaches, that only the blind may truly see.

But, I ask: what is the alternative to reason as a platform for offering a contrary understanding of doctrine?  One cannot use nonsense to combat nonsense. If one does, then he or she is in agreement with the premise of the opposition already.  There is nothing to argue because the arguments themselves are pointless.  So, the only alternative then is reason.  One must use the root ability of reason to give an argument to another man, woman, or child for the hope of the faith in Christ that they have.  There is no other avenue that is truly coherent; that truly matters.  No other choice that works.  If reason cannot explain our faith, then our faith is dead because WE do not exist.  All we believe is “true” is outside of anything having to do with man.

But I will argue that, instead of proclaiming that the doctrines of election and free will are paradoxical (contradictory),  that God’s foreknowledge and predestination must take into account that which must be true about man for God not to be a hypocrite and the Maker of the greatest redundancy in the history of the universe. And that is this:  man has free volition of self, based on his knowledge of self as utterly separate from the rest of creation and God; and based on his knowledge of God, the understanding of relationship between two rational beings and that the relationship must be comprised of the free volition of the two participants for there to be meaning and relevance to either (e.g. for God I mean this: if He creates to control creation or to determine it, He cannot be God, because this constitutes redundancy).

So, because reason is the tool God has given man to know both Him and other men, it is to reason that I will appeal.  For our arguments are not about theological interpretative vagaries; they are completely about truth versus lies.  The possibility of God and man, versus the impossibility of both in a rational sense; which is to say, in a real, TRUE, sense.  And this in order to free the minds that are enslaved (as mine was, but is no longer, thanks to God and the wisdom He so richly gives to those who ask) to an incoherent faith, which more often than not favors the “authorities” and destroys those who fund them.

The best place to start then, with reason in hand, is to destroy the ridiculous and humanity-wrecking concept of divine determinism.  And the best way to do that is to answer the “why” of election/predestination and the free will of man.  Which is, after all, what this essay is all about.

And we shall now begin again where we left off a while ago:  by looking at time, but leaving physics, per se, and discussing what it means for God to “predict” the future.

Given my historic stance on metaphysics and faith, I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you to learn that I believe it impossible for God to predict the future; and even, in that sense–the prediction sense–to know it.

Allow me to explain…

Hi Lydia,
Like I said, I think on the surface, it (Calvinism) makes so much sense.  And because of that, people generally judge a book by its cover.  They don’t need to go deeper in discovering the logical fallacies, because they are so sure that there is a good answer for it.  To go thinking about it just proves you are prideful and not trusting that God knows more than you (even if you disagree…who are YOU, Oh man….to judge God?).  When we decide that our reason MUST be how we have faith in God (and it MUST…I don’t care what they think), they throw you out as a heretic.

I would never be accepted back in my old SGM churches.  I consider this a badge of honor.

John Immel was the one who said first that Calvinism appeals to intelligent people.  I added that it appeals to good and humble people, too.  That’s what makes it so insidious and hard to dismantle.  So many smart people who love to humble themselves before their “benevolent” gnostics. Exhibit A: Bret Detwiler.  Clearly a good man, humble, leader, and rank doctrinal hypocrite.  But people give him a past on the hypocrite bit because he SEEMS so good and humble. Those that approve of Brent are functionally no different than those who approve of CJ.  They NEVER question the metaphysically and epistemologically irrational doctrine, thus, they wind up no better than they were before.  They leave the church, or the church leaves SGM, and the WAYS never change.  Abuse is still there, it only takes a little longer to manifest itself because people are at the moment hypersensitive to the OUTCOMES of heavy handed application of the doctrine.  But not the doctrine.  So, the frog jumps out of the boiling water into cold water, which then slowly starts to heat up again.  The frog never understands that it is the WATER that is the problem, not the heat.  The boiling is the natural evolution of the water itself when the “heat” (doctrine) is applied.  The frog needs to understand that to avoid the boiling, he or she needs to avoid the water altogether.

Also, on a side note…sorry I haven’t posted more on election and free will.  I am wrestling withe the time conundrum.  I mean, I feel my theory is sound, but in pursuing the time question, I stumbled upon something that has occupied my thinking.  I have a good friend who is an astro physicist in the field of relativity, and I want to run it by him.  It would explain why the universe is expanding in physical, not necessarily metaphysically terms (but, there IS some metaphysics implied)…this is not some pipe theory.  I think it has merit, but I need to make sure it is theoretically possible before I post more on election/free will.  I need to be sure that my definition of how we view time is correct according to physics.  This takes TIME!  Ha, ha.  In the mean time, I think I’ll post a bit more on my views on SGM and Calvinisms hypocrisy in general, as a function of their poor metaphysics.  That is ALWAYS fun.

Hi Lydia,

Excellent post. You are very right about the whole “check your brain at the door” mentality. The irony is that Calvinism appeals to smart people. Many of my friends in SGM are quite bright and successful. How they can apply rational thought to their jobs, for example, and yet completely throw up their hands in the face of theological nonsense is a mystery to me…except to say, I did it too; and my excuse was that I just didn’t think about it too deeply. I think on a superficial level, Calvinism has done such a good job of creating such HIGH face value, that people just assume the theological fundamentals must be just as sensible. I guess what I’m trying to say is that people can readily grasp the inconsistencies and the non-logic when they are faced with it; the problem is that they rarely are; and thinking about it for themselves is not something that really appeals or occurs to them. Occasionally, something will explode, like Brent’s wikileaks bag of flaming poop thrown at the figurative door, and a few people will step back and take pause and take a gander at the doctrinal premises. But even then, it is rare that people actually challenge the presumptions. Look at the anti SGM blogs…practically NO ONE is questioning the doctrine. And I mean NO ONE. Why?! Well…seems to me that they are still listening to their pastoral “authority”. One of the first things Detwilier did when he hypocritically attacked his spiritual superior is categorically deny doctrine had ANYTHING to do with the rank abuse and corruption of the SGM leadership (because if he concedes doctrine is at fault, he knows he then becomes culpable for the very corruption he is railing against; so for Brent, it literally CANNOT be the doctrine, or he’s never pastoring again). So…a pastor said it, he’s the authority (even subconsciously), and so, , viola! Guess what? It’s not the doctrine. Because the Calvinist says so. The SGM churches leaving…well, THEIR pastors say or imply that they are being doctrinally consistent, so, voila!! And guess what? It isn’t the doctrine…again, because the (twice hypocritical!) Calvinists say it isn’t. Those who have EVERYTHING to lose by blaming doctrine are the ones who are believed when they say “It’s not the doctrine…” and “You are the worst sinner you know” doesn’t mean what you think; it means what WE think, and what we think will change depending on the situation; so we’ll tell you what it means and when.  You can just show up and nod and tithe.”

Gross me out, people.

The surreality just keeps going and going. It’s still the same old story. There is only a problem if the Calvinist PASTOR says it’s a problem. If they say it’s not the doctrine, then it’s not the doctrine, despite aaaaaaaaalllll of the in-your-face evidence that proves it IS the doctrine.

Whatever. That’s why I started this blog. I got so fed up with being told “don’t debate doctrine here…there’s more pressing matters to attend to”. So, I’ll debate doctrine on this blog, even if it’s just me and a few others. It doesn’t matter where doctrine is discussed…it must be discussed. DOCTRINE is what must be dismantled, everything else is just a symptom. That’s a fact. Mark my words, in SGM, nothing will change. In the churches leaving, it will be even worse than it was before they left. Unless they renounce the doctrine, they are twice hypocrites and they WILL be twice as corrupt. If you are sill in SGM and you want to keep your doctrine, my advice is to go to an SGM church that is still in SGM. You’ll be better off.

In terms of Genesis 3…yes, I have thought a lot about that. It seems to me that the problem arises when Adam and Eve know “Good and Evil”, as you mentioned. I wrote about this in my large essay (of which I’m posting bits and pieces here on this blog). I won’t go into too much detail because I’ll make the whole subject a post eventually once I get through the election/free will bit, but for me, it has to do with the fact that, once they were aware that there was in fact GOOD and EVIL and that that “law” comprised the moral nature of their existence, then good and evil became FUNCTIONALLY real to them…that is, from that point on, they were no longer judged by their innocence of the law, but by their obligation to it. They lost the moral “neutrality” of NOT knowing good and evil…and it is that kind of morality, the mere GOOD in the absence of any EVIL that is God’s standard because it is what defines HIS moral existence. So, even if Adam and Eve were to do GOOD, it is only good insofar as the EVIL they understand via the moral law gives GOOD its goodness (its contextual meaning). So, as judged by the law, there is always good AND evil implicated in everything they do. Again, even if they were to do only good, that good is not morally neutral, it is only good insofar as it is given meaning via to the existence of evil…doing what you are supposed to do is DEFINED by what you are NOT supposed to do…they are inexorable, and vice versa. Thus, the sacrifice of Christ restores man to his position of moral neutrality…or innocence. Which is the morality of God: GOOD only, absent ANY reference of EVIL.

As I continue to wrestle with the issue of what is it that defines who man is; what is his soul, and as I argue the case that it is, in fact, ABILITY which is the root TRUTH of man, I continue to be unsatisfied in how I have heretofore explained the separation of this ABILITY from the biological…from the physical body of man, because it is so readily apparent that these two ideas “being able” and the body are inextricably linked. Though we are dealing with two different concepts, I am not wholly unaware of the relevance of the “if/ then” equation when talking biology and ability. And yet, I’m not settled on this. For man to be able to DO, it must be said thus: man must be able to do what he is able to do. And though this seems like semantic trickery, all I am trying to get across is the idea that there must be some kind of driving power behind the doing of the body…even if that “thing” in this life, is abstract. However, after pondering for a good bit of the afternoon, and musing upon my previous posts on the subject, I feel that I have arrived (at least to me, anyway) at a platform whereby I can relatively clearly articulate what I mean by ABILITY and why it is what I describe it as, and why also, it can be said that this ABILITY is also man’s soul, and the thing which is at the root of man, and makes him wholly separate from his Creator, and utterly culpable for all of his actions in accordance with God’s moral truths. What is less clear still, is the pragmatic structure of the soul; though, at the very least, I feel that I have discovered a clear and equal dichotomy of it, although I’m not entirely sure where these two parts of the soul fall into the equation, before or after the body, or both. But I hope to arrive at some conclusion about this soon. At any rate, what I have concluded is that there are two categories to man’s ABILITY: the rational, and the empathetic. Both of these find their root in abstract reason, and both are so important to the healthy spiritual make up of an individual that a destruction of either one (a topic upon I have already written while musing upon empathetic reason and rational reason), which I maintain is typically–except in the case of mental incapacity (e.g. insanity, cognitive impairment)–destroyed purposefully (though perhaps not permanently), by the individual so that they are culpable to God and man for the fallout; and which prevents, or is a large contributing factor to the prevention of, a person accepting Christ as Savior, and prevents him or her from carrying out those commands which are duly based on love, which of course, are the ones germane to the faith…that is, the two greatest commandments (love God, love your neighbor). So, empathy and rationality are, again, the paramount abilities of the soul. So much so that without either or both, a biologically functional individual (e.g.. one not insane, impaired) resembles more an animal than a human. And I mean this not facetiously, but that their views on others and the world are more akin to instinct and a forsaking of abstract conceptual reality in favor of something, at least philosophically, catering more to the gratification of immediate desires. That is, more of superficial “cause and effect” operative premise, as opposed to operating within the understanding of real abstract concepts which must, in order to be satisfactorily fulfilled, necessarily deny “self” to some significant degree. (By the way, I propose that REASON is why we can deny self as a matter of personal philosophy, unlike the animals; which may deny self, but are not habitually or consciously doing this. And, yes, neither are most people in a literal sense, however, I submit that “being human” regardless of culture necessitates a conscious awareness that we are oftentimes doing things that we’d prefer NOT to do. I’m not convinced that an animal is able to be so consciously aware of any “self-denial” we may observe in them. Anyway…I’m likely getting ahead of myself. I will present my theory that reason IS the SOUL shortly, and this may make more sense.)

I accept as axiomatic that man’s ABILITY needs a body for it to be manifested. But recently, I have come to the conclusion that ABILITY needs a body, not necessarily for itself to be manifested, but so that “ability” (lower case), can be manifested in the form of “doing” or “acting” or even “thinking” or “conceptualizing”. So, in that sense…that is, in the sense of the lower case “ability” I am content to concede the “if/then” premise. That is IF there is a body, THEN there must be ability. So, in a sense, I’m admitting that yes, ability = body (or the biological) in a certain context.

But only in the sense of the lower case “ability”, that is, again, the manifestation of the “doing” of the body, according to the biology of the brain which drives all the doing. But here is where I split, and here is where I continue to support my previously stated notions of ABILITY, albeit with more clarity (which is as much for me as for anyone else…so that I may be more at ease about the clarity with which I have grasped this subject). However, before that, here are a few illustrations to clarify what I mean by the relationship between ABILITY, or SOUL, and the BODY (which includes the brain, which houses the mind) and “ability”, which is manifested as both the “rational” and the “empathetic”. (Note: Diagram to come)

Note in the figure the use of the term REFERENCE ABILITY (or R-ABILITY). That is, the SOUL is the ABIILTY by which man’s rational and empathetic abilities, the “practical” abilities (those that are manifest by the body as “action/doing”) are able to function from an awareness—or “grasping of”–and understanding of real and true concepts so that the outworking of man’s “ability” is rendered true to the senses, and efficacious so that the work of man may be seen and understood by the senses to be in keeping with conceptual truth.

Now, I also accept that the term REASON may be another synonym with SOUL or R-ABILITY, in a very real sense. And what I mean by that is this: I submit that REASON is not just part of the SOUL but IS the SOUL (and you’ll note the external label: REASON, with an arrow pointing to REFERENCE ABILITY). Or better illustrated: REASON = R-ABILITY = SOUL/SPIRIT (and each label should always be included in the equation, for each label has a broader meaning which is both useful and applicable; but, in another sense, they can certainly be interchangeable, for they are the same thing, again, each with a unique angle on how to describe that thing). For it is REASON that allows man to grasp objective, conceptual, abstract TRUTH. According to Wikepedia, which offers as good a definition as any, reason is:

“Reason or “reasoning” is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad.”

This being the case, I finally decided that indeed I would no longer hesitate to fully embrace an idea I had several months ago when I began pondering the metaphysical logic of the Christian faith- in response to the strange and contradictory metaphysics of Reformed Doctrine, specifically, Calvinism, of which I adhered to for the better part of 15 years. This idea was: that the beginning of every human being, regardless of who, what or where they were/are was reason. The beginning of man is reason. For said another way, and to reiterate what I’ve already stated, reason is simply the soul of every human alive. Reason is what makes man, man; and the lack of reason is what makes the animals the animals, and the rest of creation the rest of creation. Reason is the soul which allows us to grasp conceptual abstract TRUTHS, not the least of which is our God, the Creator. It is how we are eternal…that is, it is our R-ABILITY which cannot be made UNABLE. It is how we realize that we are both part of creation, and yet separate. It is how we are culpable for our actions in this life and whatever lives are yet to come, in whatever bodies they will be lived in. This reason is our R-ABILITY. It is the ability by which man is able to do whatever he can do, as a function of his WILL, in accordance with, or against his physical body, or emotional needs or whatever other practical temporal thing may drive him or the rest of creation. This ability to reason is the eternal soul of man. It is the TRUTH by which all things are accepted as true, including God’s truths, and God Himself, as well as faith, and everything. Even blind faith is a function of reason…an act born out of rational thought and decision; though pragmatically irrational, perhaps, but rational according to the TRUE understanding of what is “right” or “good”, etc., to the individual…what constitutes what is reasonable to him, and even him alone (e.g. why some people like chocolate ice cream and others vanilla…for every preference is preferred because the person decides it is reasonable; the act of eating one is more pleasurable than the other, thus, almost instantly in such a case, the abstract concept of “preferable”, based on reason, is born as a function of the R-ABILITY, which is why man liking something is different than an animal liking something. To the animal, there is no abstract, conceptual truth which drives this—a concept recognized as such, and could be, for whatever reason, willfully violated in favor of some other reasonable abstract truth; and again, this is not the case with animals. Self-denial of an animal or self-choosing, or preference, or want, or whatever, is a fundamentally different thing for a human than an animal because for a human the driving understanding of WHY is the conceptual, abstract TRUTH of WHY, understood ultimately as a conceptual, abstract truth/law, and able to be willfully manipulated as such (adhered to, violated, etc.), as a function of the R-ABILITY which is, again, the SOUL, and REASON.
And this is why I submit that man is wholly separate from God, and yet culpable to His TRUTH. It is not because God’s TRUTH is man’s objective standard (and even if it is, how do men recognize it as such? By their own objective TRUTH…their R-ABILITIES). It is because man’s TRUTH, man’s R-ABILITY, his REASON, which is his SOUL, recognizes God and His TRUTH, as being in whatever sense to the individual, reasonable, and thus, should be chosen (or not chosen, in accordance with the “reasoning” of the individual, which is reference by the R-ABILITY the same way “choosing” God is).

And this choosing, then, is a function of both the empathetic and rational “abilities”, which is employed under the understandings of conceptual, abstract truth which is referenced by the R-ABILITY. The love of self/God/family/others/life/etc. and the reasonable-ness of God and His power to be and do what He declares He is and does. Every man and woman alive appeals to reason. It is the SOUL of man.

Now, it must be understood that I am not implying that the concepts themselves are IN the r-ability (heretofore to be spelled lower case, as well as “reason”, or “soul”…with the understanding that the prefix “r” is excluded from “ability” when I am referring to that ability which is inherent to the body/biological). I am not implying that man is born with all conceptual truth inside himself, innately, and is relying upon the biology to access it. No, concepts are a function of the external world, real, and able to be grasped as an objective “thing” so to speak. The reference ability of reason is the ability to understand these concepts and accept them as being what they are: truths. Without this r-ability, man is more an animal than human being; a function of instinct, not reason. This definition of r-ability is why not all men accept the same concepts as being TRUE. I define reason as the ability to grasp abstract concepts, recognize them as such, and not the concepts themselves. And not all men find the same concepts reasonable (e.g. for cultural reasons; reasons of personal taste or preference), however, it is by this reason that more than one man can agree that something, whatever it may be, is, in fact, a conceptual, abstract truth, and is how one man can accept that something is an abstract, conceptual truth by the tangible manifestation of IT, or a consequence of IT, which is apprehended by the senses, even if no one else does (the fact that you are the only one in the world who likes peanut butter and mustard sandwiches doesn’t mean it is less of a reasonable truth…something you choose because it is an abstract truth, which is realized by the sense of taste as being pleasurable). That is the ability which makes man, man.

This is the operative conclusion that I have arrived at. I welcome anyone to disagree…admittedly, this is just a theory. However, in light of the understanding of reason which academics and scholars have arrived at (based on my study…which is not necessarily comprehensive), I believe that reason can certainly be classified as what I call the “reference ability”, and thus, the “spirit” or soul, which is the eternal ability by which man must first exist, and which is the core of man and which, then, being the utter end of man, cannot be rendered “unable”. The eternal ability…the IS of man, as I call it.

As far as descriptors of this ABILITY go, I have no problem interchanging the labels: r-ability; soul/spirit; reason. Depending on the point I am making, one term may be better suited than another based upon the nuances of meaning. Having said that, there is a clear reason why I choose to use several terms to describe this core of man.

If we simply use soul, then I fear that an underestimation of what the soul is capable of will ensue. It is not some wisp of a ghost, moving this way and that through the eternal ether until it is provided a body by God so that the minor abilities of reason and empathy can function as a product of the biological structures. It is the root core of man which gives reference to his entire understanding of everything; because, at the end of the day, with man, everything is a concept of one kind or another; judgments are always being made in regards to what the senses perceive, and the soul provides the individual with a frame of reference by which he or she can “know” if the outcomes of the body are in accordance with “truth”. However, I do feel that the use of term “spirit” is helpful in conveying the eternal nature of this r-ability.

If we simply use the term “reason” to describe this ability, I feel the danger is that we ascribe too much of this meaning to the biological structures which formulate thought and then proceed to action. That is “reason” seems too temporal in its implication, while really the idea is that “reason” is eternal; it is the innate r-ability of every single person which designates that person as a human, as opposed to an animal, or some other life form. If we use a term that lends itself to more biological underpinnings of “understanding”, then what will happen is that the human-ness of certain individuals (cognitively impaired, children, infants, etc.) will be undermined, I fear, and truncated. This is not at all what I am arguing, which is why I do not necessarily prefer the term “reason” along, but rather r-ability, which seems to me to better describe a characteristic that every human being has, regardless of who they are or what their condition. The fact of the matter is that every human is FULLY human, regardless of their biological state. The limitations of their biology will only limit the practical out-workings of the lesser rational and empathetic abilities (not necessarily in equal measure, though…depending on the particular status of the individual); it will not limit that which makes them fully human…their core, their r-ability. The limitations of the body will only make it more difficult for them to access the reference. But this, of course, is no fault of their own, and as such they are either not culpable at all for their actions (including thoughts, physical acts, etc., etc.), or are only somewhat culpable…insofar as they CAN be by the biological functions they are allowed in their state. I have not yet determined exactly to what extent certain states or disorders limit culpability, but I do have believe that by virtue of reason and of LOVE (more on this later)—that is, our empathetic abilities, which make proceeding in compassion in all we do possible, even in cases where the strict letter of the Christian “law” may be violated—and on the neurological and psychological/psychiatric sciences, we can make reasonable assumptions about the level of culpability of persons.

As always, when in doubt, we should of course employ our empathetic ability and err on the side of mercy.

Now, it may be that the argument is somewhat difficult to “prove”, however, any philosophical argument is difficult to prove, as metaphysics, by definition, are not always validated by the scientific method, and “hard” data. However, as creatures of innate reason, it is axiomatic that “love” and “mercy” and “justice” are real concepts, and that we are able to grasp them in their truth, and so, in this way, I utterly accept this as being unquestionably and infallibly TRUE: that all people are fully human, and are subject to all rights and expectations of love and mercy that we are obliged to as rational creatures. To deny this, it is my belief, means conceding that humans are, in fact, mere animals, and that all human life and action is entirely meaningless, and thus, contradicts our very existence. If we deny the right of the label “human” to anyone, then we are not fit to call ourselves rational creatures, capable of doing anything with meaning, let alone label ourselves Christians. For me, it all comes down to culpability. For example, it is popular to describe a sociopathic murderer as “not human”, however, this is really not the case. The sociopathic monster is either not “insane” and thus, is utterly culpable for his crimes before God and civil institutions charged with regulating the larceny of people and property, or he is truly insane and, though dangerous and needing removal from rational society, is not culpable for his actions (or culpable in whatever part) due to biological constraints which are not his fault, nor are anything which he could have consciously prevented. (Incidentally, this is why I feel (unlike many of my Calvinist friends) the schools of psychology and psychiatry are so vitally important. These sciences must be the practical arbiter of such matters. Otherwise, humans are likely to suffer at the hands of vacillating and capricious “opinions” when it comes to these kinds of issues; and human history shows the horror time and again which results from human beings substituting opinions and religious interpretive assumptions for reason and fact.

At any rate, to help clarify my point, I have created these simple illustrations: (Note: Diagrams to come)

This is a useful illustration for understanding the relationship between the body and the soul, which is reason. The r-ability is separate from the body, and thus must be undiminished, and so it can be said that the human core is unchanged…however, as a function of the body, the r-ability cannot be accessed in the event of diminished physical body (brain/cognition as a function of biology). The circle which represents the body may become larger or smaller to illustrate degrees of impairment. So, I maintain that the primary r-ability is indeed separate from the body, yet no less real and true. In fact it is the IS of man, so that, again, all people can be considered fully human. Fully human is a function of the soul, not the body. If it is the body, then we concede that impaired persons are not fully human. And the rational conclusions of this mindset are too horrific for words.