All posts by Argo

On the Metaphysical Problem of Annihilation-ism

Calvinism/Philosophy, Soteriology

A thing (meaning, an object or even, in some instances, an abstract concept which is agreed upon universally and apprehended by the senses, like “hard”, “smooth”, and so on) can only effect an occurrence (change, event, etc.) according to its natural abilities.  It is not able to act against what it is able to do, by definition:  it does what it does and can do no more.  Beyond that, any effecting of anything else is not possible.  The end of anything is its ability to do whatever it can do.  Beyond its ability lay nothing else.  Anything beyond ability is an external force, and if a thing is moved by an external force beyond its ability, then the thing is THAT external force, and is not itself at all.  This of course is contradictory.  It is impossible to speak of two separate things:  if the first thing IS the second thing, then there is only the ONE thing, which is the first thing, and so on and so on.  Thus, if the end of a thing is not its OWN ability to do what it can do, then it is not itself, and thus, it is impossible to speak of it actually existing at all.  To do so constitutes an impossible contradiction (which, incidentally, is why God controlling all things and, specifically, predestining man, is metaphysically irrational and impossible, and cannot be true: if man is not himself, then he is the power which compels him; he is an extension of God, and does not exist).  For a thing to exist in the metaphysical sense, it must be the function of its own ability.  If it is the function of another’s ability, then it does not exist as itself.

For example, black can only become white if the change in color is a function of the object which IS colored…that is, the color is not the root object in question, but the thing which is of the color black, and when we speak of black becoming white what we mean is that the object that is colored black becomes colored white. The constant is the colored object.  We speak of that object changing color; we do not mean that black itself, changes to white, because this, of course, is impossible.  (E.g. a black felt hat left in a car all summer long becomes white in color because the dye in the fabric undergoes fading.  The constant then, is the hat, not the color…the hat itself does not change, but the color does, as a function of the constant thing: the hat).  You see, black itself cannot decide to become white because the end of the color black, as a object concept, is its ability; and its ability is simple:  to be black.  It cannot BE white because then, it would no longer BE black, thus could no longer BE at all.  So its not possible, we are saying, for it to still be ITSELF, and yet, be white.  Black is as far as its ability will take it.  To say that it can be white means we say that black can be both black and white simultaneously, which of course, is impossible.

If the color black could decide to be white, and thus be white, then what we admit is that we are not talking about the real conceptualization of the color black at all.  Black would not be black, but it would really be a certain innate something else and THAT is the constant thing which can be both in a state of being black, or in a state of being white.  Thus black would REALLY exist as something that possessed a nature that was utterly separate from black, the color.  For the object in question to be BLACK (that is the end truth of itself is the ability to be BLACK), it can exist as nothing beyond the state of the color black.  It is impossible for it to be white because, again, that would constitute a contradiction to itself, and thus, it could not exist at all.

This same concept can also be applied to man’s “ability”.  Man’s ability is the metaphysical term I use for “spirit” or “soul”.  It is the very beginning of man.  It is what makes his existence possible, metaphysically.  Man’s ability is thus defined as:  whatever man is able to do is a function of his innate ability.  There is nothing beyond man but his ability to do whatever he does.  If there is something that exists beyond man’s ability, then man is not man, he is merely a function of the external force which usurps his ability.  Thus, ability becomes an illusion, and so does man.  Without true, unmolested ability, with absolutely nothing beyond THAT, man is a lie and does not exist.  I understand there is much more to be said here, and that by speaking of “ability” like this, in this metaphysical sense, I may be getting ahead of where I should be on the blog, but it is what it is.  I do not think it is a difficult concept to grasp, though I do realize that it can be argued, and I will post more on the subject of “ability” later.  Needless to say, I firmly believe the Calvinist doctrine of “inability” to be metaphysically contradictory and thus, must be false.  That is my premise.

At any rate, the core of man’s existence–his essence–is the innate ability to do any and everything he does.  Now, if we believe that there is such a thing as annihilation-ism (the concept whereby man and his soul/spirit/ability are destroyed from existence…meaning, they are functionally un-created), what we are saying is that man’s ability is able to become UNable.  Ability can BECOME inability.  Naturally, I argue that this is impossible for the same reason that black cannot also be white.  If man’s root is his ability, then man stops with that ABILITY.  Thus, it is impossible for man to move to a state of inability, which is what annihilation-ism is saying.  Man’s ability cannot decide to become unable because the operative nature at the most fundamental level of ability is to be ABLE.  For ability to become inability the fundamental nature of man must be something beyond ability by which it can be unable.  There MUST be a constant thing, which is changed.  If that constant thing is, in fact, ability, then by definition, there can be NO such thing as inability, which means that man cannot cease to exist in the “able” sense, but his ability (which I say is the spirit, or soul) MUST be in fact, eternal.  It cannot be annihilated.  IF ability is in fact the end, or soul, of man, then there is nothing beyond that, and ability cannot become unable because if we say that it can, what we are saying is that ability can be both able and unable at the SAME time.  Which is, of course, literally and metaphysically impossible.

Everything man does, I argue, he does via his ability.  There is nothing beyond that.  Ability must be eternal because by definition, it cannot be unable.  Man’s soul was created to perpetually exist. Annihilation-ism implies that somehow, by his ability, man can decide to un-create himself, which is, in fact, a huge logical fallacy.  Ability/created cannot also = inability/uncreated at the same time.

Now, I understand the natural objection to my argument.  The natural objection says that it is not man doing the un-creating, it is God.  God is annihilating man, not himself.  Here is my counter argument:

The purpose of man is to exist according to his ability.  The purpose of man cannot be changed by man because man’s purpose is found in God (as opposed to the rest of creation’s purpose, which is found in itself, to provide an environment for man’s ability to be effectuated and realized), which is, again,to be himself, by pursuing God–which constitutes utter freedom of self.  God is utter freedom by definition; the more like God, the more man is free to be himself.  God, then, does NOT create man that he may be uncreated according to an act of his ability (that is, man’s ability).  Thus, the same metaphysical principle discussed in detail above still applies.  God does not respond to a choice man makes as a function of his ability by rendering man unable, for what that would naturally imply is that man is, in fact, using his ability to compel an outcome whereby that ability becomes inability.  A = B = C.  Man’s ability = reject God = man is annihilated is the same as saying man’s ability = man’s inability.  God can no more act in a metaphysically impossible way than the rest of all of the heavens and creation, for doing so constitutes that He is in fact a creator of the redundant and irrelevant, and is thus a hypocrite, and CANNOT be, in fact, God.  To say that man can provoke annihilation of his ability by his own ability is a logical and metaphysical fallacy.  It is clear then, that God will not oblige annihilation-ism in order that He may not be seen as the the creator of the metaphysically nonsensical.  If God is truly the author of man’s ability, then ability is the end and beginning of man, and as such, inability cannot be ever effected.  In short, God created man’s soul to be eternal, regardless of whatever choices man makes as a product of his ability.

The conclusion of all of this is, again, that man exists to be eternal not to be uncreated.  I would caution all of us who name the name of Christ to be careful that, in the interest of showing compassion and love to others, which I feel is the motivation behind the concept of annihilation-ism (at least in some), that we do not somehow minimize the urgent need of Christ for the world.  To preach annihilation-ism what we are saying is that there is no judgment; for regardless of when that annihilation comes, the result is nothing, and by definition, the punishment then for sin is nothing at all.  If God does not reject (punish, enact a consequence, etc., etc.) forever, then the fact is that ultimately there is no consequence for sin, which is contradictory to the faith.  If man can be uncreated, then all that man does, including sin, is forgiven without Christ, which, again, is impossible, by the very definition of what it means for a Christ to exist.   I don’t mind re-evaluating the concept of hell, but we must be careful about proclaiming that it does not exist at all, or that the judgment of God is a false concept, which is exactly what we do when we proclaim annihilation-ism.  By definition, if man becomes nothing, then there is NO judgment.  The judgment of man cannot be nothing, because that constitutes irrational contradiction.  Non-existence is not a consequence of anything; again, it is simply nothing.

Correction: a “consequence” of nothing-ness is NOT forgiveness. For if man does not exist, then by definition, there is nothing there to forgive. And, also, nothing to condemn. The point being that man’s soul’s purpose is God, and will always be God (for there was PURPOSE in man’s creation), and therefore, the soul does not pass away unless God passes away. If God uncreates a person, then He is a hypocrite. He created man’s ability to be able, not to be un-able.

Addendum: (response to question from another poster on another blog; and clarification)

My posit is that if a soul exists, then it is that by which men are able, meaning the soul is ABILITY.

I do not have a problem looking at ability as actually existing (I guess in the “platonic sense”, as Nick pointed out)…I do not view it as merely an abstract by product of the biological. This is a very difficult issue for either side to argue. What I’m saying is that merely pointing out that ability needs a body (the biological, in this case…meaning, this life), one cannot automatically declare that the idea that ability isn’t real, nor is it metaphysically feasible. If you line up a bunch of guys in a row, you can’t tell which is the race car driver. You need to put them in a car to see that. Merely taking away the the car isn’t proof that the ability to drive doesn’t exist, and is merely a “hole”, that is, a product of the tangible. It just shows that without the car, it cannot be manifested. That isn’t a perfect analogy I realize, but I do think that it is just as large a stretch to declare that just because you can’t see ability without the body, then it MUST be merely a function of the body…that is, the assumption is that the body comes first in the process.

So, I argue that the ability of the person to race cars is REAL. And what I’m saying is that the end of man is the capital A “ability”, which is equally as real, but is broader because it encompasses ALL that man can do, which is what defines Man as Man. It is the end of man, and the beginning, and I would call that ability “soul”. And what I argue is that if that is truly the root of man, meaning, his functional core, then it is the constant. Take away everything else, and you are left with man’s ABILITY. And if that is all there is…if that is the IS of, man, then there can be no such thing as INABILITY. So, ability is simply the word…like, for example, God you would call TRUTH, but the fact is that TRUTH implies FALSE. But when we say God’s TRUTH, what we mean is just God. God’s truth, without “false” is really just God Himself. And when I say man’s ability, I mean simply “man”. So if man = ability (which is my assumption here),then man MUST be eternal because, again, ability cannot be UNable. Because if we say that it is, then we say that man can be both ABLE and UNABLE at the same time, which is impossible. Just like black cannot BE white because ITSELF is BLACK. Black is the end of black…so to say black can become white, we say that black can BE white at the same time. Impossible. If something is going to change color, then the constant, the ITSELF, has to be separate from the color. A hat can be both green or blue, but its still a hat. The hat cannot be a frog at the same time it’s a hat.

The root thing is the thing in question; is the constant (if the “hole” were the constant, then yes, the “hole” would be a real thing, because there would be nothing else beyond “hole”)…so, yes, a body can be alive and then dead but the soul cannot because the soul cannot be able and unable at the same time.

Finally, to use the Bible for a change, Jesus said that we should fear the One who can destroy both body and soul, not just those who can kill the body. To me, the Christian premise is that body and soul are separate. And if that is so, I argue that the soul is immortal.

On the Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible

Biblical Inerrancy, Calvinism/Philosophy

On the Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible:

When we try to fit the commands, or the truths of the Bible into a context where it doesn’t belong, then by definition, the truth stops being the truth. Or better said, the truth loses its practical relevancy, and it becomes moot. In the context where the command or truth is applied is where the truth reveals itself as being true. When applied wrongly-in the wrong context-the truth becomes useless; for in that circumstance, the truth malfunctions, and the outcome is disaster. “Inerrant” implies that regardless of where and how applied, the truth will always be seen to be true…that is, regardless of context, the truth will be realized (e.g. God Himself, can exist utterly without context, in only Himself, and His truth will ever be realized by the one to whom it ultimately matters…God; I would also add to this very short list of things able to be realized in and of themselves, outside of any context, man’s “ability”). Any truth or command that depends on application in proper context for its realization as “true” or “right” is NOT inerrant, for the application of it is subjective to man and the Holy Spirit, who enlightens man as to how and where to apply God’s truths and commands. Again, applied in the wrong context, the truth becomes fallacy for practical purposes. This can never be said of any “inerrant thing”…if a thing needs qualification in order to be declared inerrant or infallible, it is, by definition, not inerrant or infallible (applying the command “do not work on the Sabbath” to healing a sick human being, or “do not steal” to a man starving to death, is improper context, and makes a mockery of the command). An inerrant truth never becomes folly; thus, it can never be subject to context.

All commands in the Bible then, and truths, are subservient to man and his context, through the knowledge and power of the Holy Spirit; and ultimately subject to the greatest command and truth “love God”, which is, of course, the cornerstone of man realizing his utter freedom according to his innate ability. For God loves Himself before anything else, and so should we…for this is freedom; this is being perfect.
From this it logically follows that everything in creation is subject, not to the Bible, or to God’s commands or truths, but to God Himself. God is the first thing sought (and the result is the next greatest command “love your neighbor”, which is how we practically apply the first greatest command), because He is truly the only inerrant and infallible thing…and creates, by definition, the context by which His commands are applied. He is never context Himself…He is I AM. So everything is subject to Him, even His own commands and truths are subject to Him…meaning, is subject the greatest command: Love God. Anything that is NOT God is subject to Him. The commands of Christ/God are subservient to Himself. So, again, the commands of God and the truths of God are not inerrant because of two things: 1. They are subservient to Him; which means they are subservient to the greatest command of loving God, and 2. They are only realized in MAN’S context.

So, we need to redefine how the commands and truths of the Bible look and how they apply to our context, which will be inherently different from people who lived 2000 years ago or more. Any command that needs to be re-interpreted for the context of man implies that the command is FOR man, not man for the command (which, of course, completely alters the nature of the command; though, on its face it may look like mere semantics). Meaning, man applies the command or truth to his life in a way where the command is most efficaciously realized…which means, truths and commands are tools of man, and thus cannot be inerrant or infallible, but are subjective to the application in man’s particular, individual context. The infallibility comes in in the form of the Spirit, who guides man in interpreting the command in Spirit and Truth so that the result is that this truth is actively realized, and faith in GOD (not the truth, necessarily) is strengthened. So, once again, we see that the commands or truths of the Bible (incidentally, it is important to realize that the commands of God are NOT God Himself; this is a metaphysical truth with HUGE implications, obviously) are only realized within the confines of certain man-made contexts, and thus, it becomes obvious that any command or truth which must operate thus is not, then, infallible, because infallible in the metaphysical sense means that the infallible thing derives its truth only from itself, never from the context of the fallible.

The infallible thing can be of no practical use to man because the infallible thing must force everything to conform to IT, regardless of who, what, where, or when, and as this is by definition, impossible for the fallible thing to do (which, is of course, everything that is not the infallible thing). So, if this is in fact the idea behind the commands and truths of God, there is no way creation can even exist; if its purpose is to conform to the infallible, the it is impossible for creation to BE (this is a good time to express another metaphysical truth: the fallible can and must only be a creation of the infallible). So, if the idea of creation is that it has to conform to an infallible thing, God could never have created it. Thus, the Bible cannot be infallible. If it is, then it is of no more practical use to man, in and of ITSELF, than God is. The reason the Bible is useful is precisely because it is NOT infallible or inerrant, but is ultimately subject to man for its purpose and usefulness. If the Bible is infallible, then man’s existence is contradicted. We would do well to remember that the basis of tyranny, as we see in the Bible where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their lack of love when it came to healing on the Sabbath, is to make man for the command instead of the command for man.

I would also add that the concept of “inerrant” is irrelevant when applied to the Bible. It is a word which serves no purpose and is meaningless in the context of discussing the Bible. It is a non-concept…really, a tool of despots. I submit that when speaking of the Bible, we cannot even make this term mean anything rational. What are we saying, exactly, when we declare the Bible inerrant. We are really saying nothing. The idea of inerrancy does not affect faith in any way, but, again, is only useful for men bound and determined to declare their views and interpretations of what is “orthodoxy” as being infallible TRUTH, and thus on par with God Himself. Imagine the power this gives man if his followers are convinced thus.

What does it mean to filter our life through the Bible? (I’ve heard this several times in the past.) If all the answers to life’s questions and complications are found in the Bible, where exactly does God come in? If the Bible is inerrant, what do we need God for? The truth is either so obviously self-evident, or so beyond our ability to understand and apply that God would become a non-entity in our lives(we have the Bible, he’d say…what do you need Me for?) From the idea of just filtering our lives through the Bible, it would seem clear that all we need to do is read the Bible and do it. Well, this kind of thinking may be useful when building a cabinet or a swing set, but comprehensive world philosophies simply cannot function this way, and I’m surprised at how many people view the Bible like a talisman this way. Man becomes an extension of an inanimate object…a book by which he must filter himself, his very wants, needs, talents, ideas, essence, and SOUL through.

However, the truth is closer to the other way around. The Bible is filtered through man and man’s God (Holy Spirit). God’s linguistic revelation to man does not necessitate the enactment of the logical and metaphysical fallacy of the revelation being inerrant. The truths and commands of the Bible must conform to the greater moral truth that is God’s love and man’s life and will. Man’s free will cannot be trumped by the Bible when that will is being applied in service to the greater moral truth of man’s utter inalienable right, as evidenced by his very creation, to LIVE and to BE himself, according to all his ability, when that will does not violate the two greatest commandments, which imply and apply moral restrictions on the larceny of another human being. One does not have the right to force another person into bondage, or to curtail their right to own themselves or be themselves in service to some command or truth of the Bible when that person is in no way violating the physical and spiritual/emotional property of another human being (which is the root of the two greatest commands). The Bible is helpful instruction, and the Holy Spirit will and does convict individuals of Biblical points according to their unique circumstances or needs. But “authority” in regards to controlling or owning another in service to some scriptural command or truth or interpretive method or understanding or opinion is simply not Biblical; it is a lie. For this larceny and oppression, Jesus had much to say. The Bible is NOT a club to bludgeon people with. PEOPLE are more important than the Bible and all the revelations and commands therein. And if this is true, then the Bible was never intended nor implied in itself to be infallible or inerrant. No, God first; then man. That is Christianity. The Bible is just a book. A great, helpful, inspired book…but loving God and human beings is more important than dogmatic adherence to any Biblical command or truth. Not that obedience is not important…it is just fundamentally less important than your fellow man.

“I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”
-God

Welcome to Unreforming Theology, where Enlightenment Philosophy meets Christianity

Calvinism/Philosophy

[Dearest reader,

Please, mind my tone.  I apologize in advance.  I’m passionate, not angry.  Like so many of us, my “tone” often gets lost in the blogging shuffle for obvious reasons inherent to the written word.  Please understand that, no matter who you are, I love you, I do not hate you, even though you may hate me…and though we may disagree, and our disagreement may be heated, remember, even though you may reject my words and my views, I do all this because I love human beings.  Those whom God loves, who He created out of love, and saved out of love…human beings, who are relevant and can please God in ways that no other created thing can.  Human beings whom God thinks very much of, saved or unsaved, who are not totally depraved, and not necessarily inclined to sin, but are created in His likeness, born in freedom and free to be who they are and to do what they do, apart from any possession of any other force, and worth the sacrifice of the innocent Christ, who died to bring us back to our position of innocence, who (that is, man) before the Fall and after was and is God’s most precious creation.

-Argo]

[Note:  In my blog I will often use the noun “man” when speaking about humanity.  This is an all inclusive term I use when I’m referring to “humanity” in general.

Incidentally, my official position is that men and women are of equal worth before God, and neither is created to be in submission to the other, and both are free to pursue any and all interests or roles in their lives, with talents and desires that span the broadest ranges, given grace to pursue by God, even to the work of Christ in ministry, and that nothing but man-made tradition and poor exegesis of scripture pose a stumbling block to the inherent freedom of women. I further believe that this view strengthens our witness and living-out of the the Gospel, and does not hinder it.  To use doctrine as a means to relegate a human being to a “role” or a “title” is oppression, and counter-productive to the Christian faith.]

What I intend to do here is prove that reformed theology, in particular Calvinism (and many ideas or beliefs that stem from this kind of philosophy, which many currently take as given, and even perhaps believe it is NOT reformed at all, but merely “biblical”), is simply theologically and philosophically false.  I do not offer merely an opinion, but I seek to offer ideas that are better because they are true and reformed theology is not.   These ideas are going to understandably be hard for many people to swallow (e.g. the Bible is neither inerrant nor infallible; there is no such thing as biblical or spiritual “authority”, and that any such philosophical understanding of authority is false.  All authority is is the power of one to force another into doing something against their will.  Authority then in the spiritual sense is lie…there is only freedom and force; thus, any such talk of authority only implies force, and force is never given to compel spiritual agreement in the Bible.  There is no obligation, only willing acceptance that the outcomes of one idea are better than another.  Obligation, if it is to be obligation at all, is still dependent upon the willingness of the one to whom obligation is implied.  The individual decides whether or not they are obligated, not any “authority”, and whether or not consequences outweigh the cost of obedience.  God never forces or possesses, thus, any MAN proclaiming his right and power to do this is a liar.  So when your local Calvinist pastor or elder (or whatever term in vogue is at the moment) makes a plea for his authority, recognize this as a lie and ignore it.  Reject any claims to false philosophical ideas that have nothing to do with being a Christian).

I’m not trying to sensationalize.  I’m not trying to shock people.  I’m simply unraveling the theological ideas that have for far too long been accepted as orthodoxy and biblical when they are not, and which serve only one useful purpose:  destroy the power of the Holy Spirit in the life of human beings, and thus to destroy humanity in service to “doctrine”.
Yes, I intend to use lots of words.  Yes, I heartily intend to nitpick to death ideas and themes.  Yes, I do admit that the philosophical ideas I will be discussing are hard to understand; but, still, I accept them as axiomatic, and further (in the Enlightenment vein of this blog) I maintain that reason is the only way we can relate to God and ourselves, and therefore, if our understanding of our faith contradicts what is rationally shown to be true in real life, it needs to be re-examined and a new conclusion drawn.  I utterly maintain that our faith was meant to be reasonable; and I reject the idea that any core doctrine of the Christian faith resides in contradiction.

To end this introductory post, here are two quotes:

“When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity.  When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.  The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.”

-Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, “The Communist Manifesto”

“Thus, it would seem that both the Communists and the Calvinists agree: Christianity is incompatible with the American concept of liberty, which is based on the philosophy of the Enlightenment.  I agree that they both fully believe this, and that their philosophy supports this argument; I also agree that it is false.”

-Argo