Category Archives: Calvinism/Philosophy

Another response: the problem is the water, not the boiling

Calvinism/Philosophy

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.

Response to LydiaSOP–Blame the SGM DOCTRINE; and knowledge of Good/Evil

Calvinism/Philosophy

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.

Reason as the Metaphysical Foundation of Job’s Lament

Biblical Inerrancy, Calvinism/Philosophy

(Note:  If you haven’t read Job before, or its been a while, going back and reading or re-reading it again is a good idea prior to reading this post.)

“Oh, that I knew where I might find Him; that I might come to His seat! I would present my case before Him, and fill my mouth with arguments.  I would know the words which He would answer me, and understand what He would say to me.  Would He contend with me in His great power?  No! But He would take note of me.  There the upright could reason with Him, and I would be delivered forever from my Judge.” – Job

Before I move on to the predestination/free-will contradiction, which I intend to unravel shortly, I would like to give a biblical illustration of the use of reason (the “reference ability”, as I term it, or soul) in understanding the Creator and how He relates to man.  I say illustration, not proof, for two reasons.  The first is that it is not the intention of this blog to be a Bible study.  On the contrary, I intend to prove my theological premises via my innate sense of reason, rooted in logical metaphysics.  I will use the Bible to iterate or reiterate, or to provide an example of the metaphysical premise I am defining and defending for the purposes of enlightening myself and readers to how this premise may look when practically applied via our religion and our faith (which is based, again, on reason, as I have explained somewhat (but will do so more later) in a previous post).  But I do not desire use the Bible as proof of my philosophy; for to do this would constitute an obviously circular argument and, further, would move me into the direction of my Calvinist friends, and others, where the assumption is that the Bible doesn’t have to be particularly logical, or metaphysically consistent, or non-contradictory, because it’s either too lofty (ironically) to be judged as needing to conform to the logic of reality, or because it is too spiritual, and thus, stands in stark contrast by definition to logic or reality…thus, it is granted something akin to massive artistic license under the guise of “inerrancy”.  Note that the logical conclusion of both of these arguments leads to the same place:  the bible doesn’t NEED anyone to illustrate or to organize a logical metaphysical premise for its truths because it is the Bible; the Bible can be used to prove itself.  Even attempting such a feat is, in some circles, is an exercise in rank heresy.  Obviously, I completely disagree.  This is the kind of “logic” that drives people from the religion, no to it.  But that never seems to deter the more fundamentalist members of our religion from  from appealing to “infallibility” in defense of their own particular interpretations, and when responding to metaphysical (or logical, or theological) disagreements. “The Bible said it; I believe it; that’s the end of it”, is the sum of many people”s philosophical concern in regards to their Christian beliefs.  While I can respect that this is a comfortable and uncomplicated view to hold, it is decidedly not the point of this blog.

Now, to reiterate, I define reason essentially as you will find it explained in Wikipedia.  In summary, it is that faculty of man by which abstract, conceptual truth can be known, and the outcomes of its contextual applications can be apprehended by the senses, that the mind may (also by the r-ability) grasp this truth (or, one might call it, in metaphysical terms: law, e.g. natural laws, mathematical laws, consistent cause and effect interactions laws, etc.) so that it may be understood to indeed be true (though, not necessarily permanent…for a “law” as apprehended by man’s reason does not need to conform to the idea of perpetuity; man’s reason allows him to continually see relationship between cause and effect outcome, and declare that cause and effect rational, even if it isn’t constant, meaning, perpetual. (For example, you dislike the Red Sox, but you are at a game in Fenway Park and so decide to root for them anyway just this once, because your very best friend, with you, is a fan).  The fundamental aspect of man’s reason is its ability to see the relationship as being a truth, or law, regardless of how permanent that relationship may be.)  Thus you could argue that reason itself is the utter TRUTH (and I do argue it) that is the reference for all the other truths, no matter how small, large, short or long term, temporal or eternal.  And these truths of course, are stacked, and parsed by the same reason, so that rooting for a team you dislike is a reasonable exception to another axiom, which is referenced by another, rooted in another, and so on and so forth.

In this post what I will submit is this:  that Job’s appeal to God’s mercy and his friends’ understanding and sympathy is an appeal to reason.  Job is a book about a man struggling with the metaphysics and rationale of what he is enduring, according to the truths he fully knows and comprehends.  Note how in his soliloquies there is never a hint of the idea that he could be misunderstanding that which he knows must be true about himself and God.  He is fully convinced in his own mind that he has full grasp and awareness of the rational, cause and effect metaphysics of the truths of his relationship with God; and of God.  This, of course, flies in the very face of Calvinist theology, where man can never presume upon his understanding of anything about God.  No, Job never questions his own epistemology.  He knows what he knows and fully believes that he does, indeed, know it.

Understanding of how he knows what he knows and the truth of what he knows is never something he calls into question (take note, his friends DO…which, in light of my fifteen years as a devoted Calvinist fully immersed in the doctrines of total depravity and inability of man, I find extremely enlightening and interesting).  His knowledge of God and his metaphysical and rational understanding of God and His goodness–according to his well-understood concepts of right and wrong, just and unjust, etc.–is something Job simply presumes.  Now, though I would argue that his friends do not consistently presume this (at least once Job is forced to explain that he knows exactly what they know, and believes what they believe about God and that they are not “better than [him]”), it does seem as though, in the course of the discussions, all the parties involved at least have a general understanding that they are proceeding from agreed upon standards of truth, and that the focus of the debates  is the interpretation of the unfortunate events which have constituted Job’s demise, and not on defining exactly how they know who and what God is.

Thus, as far as Job, the man, is concerned, the book is purely about an individual who is judging God and what he sees by appealing to the truth of metaphysical rationality.  So, what I am saying is that man’s reason forms the singular basis for his fundamental understanding of how he relates to his Creator.  It is why man can even know Him in the first place.  It is reason that allows man to even grasp the concept of a Creator in the first place.  Reason itself, in the form of the the soul, precedes even God in man’s consciousness.  I’m not making a quantitative statement on degree of importance, I am simply pointing out the fact that reason is itself the very beginning of man and everything he understands.  This being the case, we begin to understand just why and how Job was so utterly tortured in his mind; why he writhed in as much exasperation as he did in pain.  Why he longed that the day he was born had never been.   Because, I submit, if God no longer fits into man’s reason…if the Creator of all and all truth removes himself from the framework and structure of man’s reference ability, then all men are by definition functionally insane.  There can be no point to their existence because there can be no point to ANYTHING at all, including God, because, without reason, or rather, in the case of irrelevant reason (meaning God functions outside of rational metaphysics/understanding) life, by definition, as a function of the divine work of the Creator, becomes not only irrelevant, but in a way, a literal living hell.  And I believe that this formed a significant part of Job’s torment.  He could not psychologically cope with the idea that God could decide to remove Himself from rational understanding according to logical metaphysics and the ability to recognize truth/laws in the form of abstract, conceptual truths; could remove Himself from His own laws which Job could, by virtue of reason, know and depend on consistently.  With that gone, Job realized that his life could mean nothing; and he lamented his birth.

In the book, Job fully acknowledges two things:

1. That God is always supreme; what He wills comes to pass, regardless of what may be a moral or rational truth; what may be metaphysically or pragmatically reasonable.  As the Creator, Job recognizes and concedes that this is entirely God’s prerogative; and He is just and good for doing whatever He does because He is God.  Job recognizes that the supreme truth of God being the Creator of everything means that God is always good, even outside man’s understanding, reason, or moral assumptions. (I hesitate to say “truths” here, and prefer assumptions, even though this word may not be completely appropriate…one must be careful; the point is that God can do anything He wants, and He is still just and good, because God’s justice and goodness is a function of Himself, not on laws or ethics that are applicable for man’s created context.  I trust we can leave it there and say safely that the point has been made.)

2. God is not acting towards Job in a way that is consistent with God’s metaphysical truth; and by this I mean that God is acting in a way that could not possibly be true, because, by God acting contrary to metaphysical reason which Job understands must be true for God to be God, then God cannot BE God.  That is BE all powerful and all supreme and all perfect.  For the nature and truth of God demands that He act according to the metaphysical truths that make His existence possible.   Being perfect means that perfection must be a truth that man can acknowledge, and it must have meaning, and thus, God cannot defy that meaning and still be God.

You may see a contradiction between these two points, and you see correctly.  They are both true, but on the other hand, this is of course impossible.  It is truly a contradiction that no logic or understanding of man can rectify.  And if you see this, you are astute, and you begin to understand Job’s psychological torment.  Both ARE true, and yet, this cannot make any sense but that man is born to be functionally insane; to exist in a world where reality is a dream, and the surreality of dreams passes for reality.  Where there can be no distinction between up and down because even though they may be “true”, they are meaningless, and cannot, then, be trusted.

This is the heart of Job’s misery, I believe.  Worse than even the physical torment and the loss of his family.  When we have reason by which we can grasp the eternal truth of God, everything has a perspective.  We understand that the anchor of the universe is comprehended, and thus, even in the midst of great tragedy, we can find order and sense and comfort.  When God removes Himself from our ability to reason, our reference ability, then the physical gives way to the addition of emotional torment, followed inevitably by madness.  All life is twisted, and in Job’s case, an enigma of a nightmare with no code to break into the light of the understanding of it.  A maze of horror with only one dead end after another.  Put this way, we can understand better his long, and sometimes scarcely coherent, anguished monologues.

Job is constantly making pleas for God to be who He is.  That is, to judge Job according to what He Himself is rationally culpable; to the abstract truths to which He, by virtue of being God, must obligate Himself in order to be, in fact, God.  In order for God to be God, He MUST respect the rational truths which man has grasped by his innate and God-given reason.  Without God adhering to this reason, man’s existence is pointless, and God becomes the Creator of the redundant.  And as such, He makes Himself a hypocrite.  Job cannot suffer this thought, and so cries of anguish and pleas to God for justice are all that is left for him to do.  Job begs to be treated in a manner in keeping with the GOOD he understands, by his reason, which he doggedly adheres to, and insists that he has done, in accordance with God’s commands and God’s rational and metaphysical truth.

We see ultimately that, at the end, Job does not forsake God.  But I think the reason isn’t what one may at first suppose.  Upon first glance, and superficial introspection, we assume that Job’s trust in God is merely a conceding of the supremacy of God to do whatever He wants to do because, of course, it is a prerogative of His omnipotent “office”.  But I do not think it is this at all.  Instead, I believe that Job makes a conscious decision that he will trust God according to, not in spite of, what he (Job) understands to be metaphysically reasonable in regards to God.  He will trust that in order for God to actually be God, and to be all the omni-plus things that are inherent to God, God MUST act according to Job’s rational and real metaphysical understanding of God’s truth, and that, this being the case, there MUST be an explanation for his predicament that fits this proper understanding of God, even though it seems as though God is not keeping to His own metaphysical obligations.  That is, again, those things which MUST be true in order for God to be who He is.

Job recognizes that the only solution to his misery–the only shred of rational understanding to bring comfort–is to trust that God is not, in fact, a hypocrite.  That what is happening must somehow be a function of God’s rational truth, not in spit of it or in opposition to it.  Job will not forsake God based on THIS, and not on anything else.  And this premise has two aspects to it.

The first is that God cannot be God if He is not metaphysically consistent, thus, forsaking God would be a moot and irrelevant move on his part.  God can have no power or bearing upon Job’s temporal or eternal future, and so forsaking him is a less viable option than attempting to reason with Him.  It is nonsense on top of misery.  And the second is that forsaking God would be, for Job, an act of acquiescing to the very thing he is refusing to accept: that God can act unjustly, contrary to what he knows to be reasonably true based on his correct understanding of who God is, in light of the righteousness he (Job) has done.

The moral (or, perhaps, one of the morals, I should say…though, it may indeed possibly be THE moral) of the story of Job is that when faith in God means directly rejecting what we know to be real, based on the the inherent reason we have been given, innately, by God–that is, on what we understand of reality–then what we really are doing is rejecting that very same faith.  Outside of reason, then, there can be no faith.  Without reason, there is nothing by which we can ever trust God.  God’s very existence becomes irrelevant to man; and therefore, God cannot, in fact, be God.

Faith no longer has any foundation by which it can be reasonable.  And if it isn’t reasonable, then there can be no expectation of consequences of that faith whatsoever.  There can be no trust that anything is true at all, including God.  If the Creator removes Himself from how man conceptually organizes his world and his ideas so that constant, knowable outcomes can be integrated, then man’s very existence, and ALL the laws which man grasps by his reason become utterly pointless.  And if they are pointless, then they are laws without meaning.  And laws without meaning are ultimately truths that do not serve.  And a truth that does not serve is not a truth at all.  A truth that cannot be trusted to effect any outcome of any significance is not really “true”.  This is because a truth or law is designed to help man organize his world.  If his Creator has pulled Himself away from the truth that organizes creation, how are the truths any longer true? The original intent of any law or truth is eliminated at its source: the Creator.  The purpose for creation itself is gone, thus, all truths cease to be true, because creation cannot functionally exist.

So faith itself, absent an anchor of reason, which to me IS the soul, becomes a capricious, purposeless idea.  The Creator has removed Himself from being a rational object of faith.  Thus, faith is dead.  And this is what Job refuses to concede.  And the irony is that when we trust in God’s metaphysical TRUTH and refuse to surrender it to appeals for irrational “faith” based on our submission to blindness and inherent ignorance or madness (such as proffered by Job’s “friends”), we are able to exhibit real, effective, and rational faith.  Faith in God truly becomes faith that God is who He is, and does what He does for the benefit of Himself and man, based on conceptual truths that are factual and real and that man can grasp because in order for God to be God and Creation to be what it is–which is, essentially, to exist–these abstract rational truths/laws MUST be true and man MUST have innate ability to access them.  In this way, we can trust that He will never stop being perfect.  In other words, we can trust that He will never stop being God.  And because He is God, He will never violate man’s reason.  For a violation of man’s reason is a violation of Himself.

And this is why Job would not reject God.

Differentiation Between Reference Ability/Reason/Soul and the Observable Ability of the Biological

Calvinism/Philosophy

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.

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