I haven’t forgotten about my series on abstract value hierarchies.  But I had to get to this first.  Any time Wade is presented front and center on Wartburg Watch, apart from his usual Sunday e-church stint, I find that I am unable to hold my tongue.  And since it has been has been over eighteen hours since I added my comments and they are still in moderation oblivion (which always happens when they are about Wade, by the way), I figured a full on examination of the article was in order for my blog, where I cannot be censored to protect the neo-Calvinist leadership.

The proverbial wool of “sound doctrine” that constantly masquerades as the solution to human abuse and church dysfunction over at that blog is absolutely exasperating.  I know Dee and Deb are much smarter than this…but they fall for the trap over and over and over.  I submit they concede the evil premises because they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that they could have been that wrong for that long (I had the same problem).  I submit that through Wade, they seek reassurance for the vile doctrine they used to accede.  I could be wrong, of course, but I just can’t see it any other way. They want to believe that it is as easy as spotting the few bad seeds, when the the reality is that these “seeds” are are really just men, like C.J. Mahaney, for instance, whose evil practices became so great that not even two thousand years of orthodoxy could run blocker for them anymore.  I mean…shit, when the children come out and start crying “rape!”, even a brilliant preacher like C.J. has to boogie on out of town.  Which, as you recall, is exactly what he did.

The hypocrite.

If you haven’t yet, I recommend you read Wade Burleson’s guest post on www.thewartburgwatch.com, called “Be in Awe of Jesus and Love Yourself” posted on Monday, February 16, 2014.

It is hard to know just where to start with an article written by Wade, but especially this one…I agonized for some time about this.  I guess I’ll just jump right in with this ostensibly compassionate quote:

“Everyone knows from personal experience that real, genuine heartfelt love is drawn from a heart that is being loved!.”

Um…okay.  Yeah.  Wrong.  To be blunt, this is just rank nonsense.  Love can never be present in a person who cannot or will not accept that there is an infinite amount of inherent value in their existence as a distinct SELF.  As a creature of God, the inherent value of BEING a person is the root of all love.  It is how you can receive love from God and anyone else, and how you can love yourself and share that love with others.  If there is no inherent value in simply BEING, then man does not possess any sufficiency for being a receptacle for love.  Love cannot be reconciled to what is conceded to be fundamentally worthless at its physical and metaphysical root.  Worthlessness is completely antithetical to love.  As much as I do not like to appeal to the Bible as my “final authority” for truth (for truth is a function of reason; and reason is a function of reconciling ALL ideas to the only objective standard of TRUTH, which is individual human life (existence)), the Bible is a useful work for some arguments.  For example, where in the Bible to we ever see God declaring his abject, “unconditional love” (a phrase which I do not believe appears in the Bible… there is no such thing; for all love is contextual, by definition, and thus, it is conditional, by definition) for worthless things?  Answer:  NO where.  Worthless things are counted worthy only of destruction, never salvation.  What is worthless has no practical value, making its existential essence functionally ZERO, or nothing.  And it is impossible to save “nothing”.  Or, think of it this way:  unconditional love for an unconditionally worthless object equates to a product of ZERO.  Infinite love times infinite nothingness equals nothing.  Or, probably better said, infinite love added to infinite nothingness makes the love irrelevant.

Later Wade says:

“I propose to you that only when you are utterly captivated by what Jesus has done for you will you become overwhelmed with the value, worth and dignity of your person.”

According to Wade, your value is rooted in what “Jesus has done”, not in any inherent value you possess as a function of the SELF of your own existence.  There was NO value in humanity, goes the logical extension, until Jesus “did it”.  This is pure Reformed gnosticism, and is far from what the Bible teaches, period.  Full stop.  The truth is that Jesus died on the cross because you had infinite and inherent existential and moral value already.

And he follows shortly after with this:

“God died for you while you were yet a sinner, but it is the love of God for your sinful soul that makes you valuable.” [Emphasis, mine]

Now…did you catch what Wade just did there with those two quotes?  It is very subtle so you may not see it right away.  But that’s okay.  I’ll wait.

…this little piggy went to the market…baa baa black sheep have you any wool…here I aaaaaaam, and here I staaaaaaand, let the storm rage oooooooon!!!!!! The cold never bothered me anyway. (I have two little girls…what, you didn’t think I’ve seen “Frozen”?  Twice, baby.)

Okay, I’m sure you have it now.  Yes. Mm hm.  That’s it exactly.  Notice how God’s love for you is a prerequisite for you loving yourself.  Meaning that your love for yourself is a direct product of God’s love for you.  Unless God directs his love personally AT you, you have no justification to love your self.  Your value is in”what Jesus did”; it is in “God’s love”.  It is NEVER due to any autonomous or inherent value of YOU, by yourself, by the simple fact of your existence.  And without this…without an inherent value to humanity as distinct objects and agents apart from God, there is no such thing as any real, efficacious value, which means that man is, at his root, utterly incapable of being loved, of receiving love, and thus of loving himself.  And this makes any love you might have for yourself merely a direct function of God’s determining force of your “election”.  There is no YOU in the equation.  YOU have no value.  God’s love for you is in SPITE of you.  Thus your love for you must be in SPITE of you.  Or, put another way, and I will reiterate this later, God loves you FOR you.  Meaning, you don’t ever really love you, God loves you as an extension of his arbitrary determining election, which again, is always in spite of you, and NEVER because you have any inherent worth.  And thus, it is impossible to love yourself.  Because YOU?  Are never really part of the equation.

And this is what makes Wade’s message so dastardly.  That it is couched in compassion makes it even that much more vile because it adds an element of deception.

Wade is extremely convincing in his article…his heart seems genuine; his love for people seems objectively apparent.  He seems legitimately concerned that people understand the importance of accepting themselves as products of God’s divine pleasure in Christ.  Fortunately those of us who are by now sensitive to all manner of irrational mysticism and hip to the jive of the REAL message of the American theo-marxist oligarchy are no longer fooled by devils passing for angels of light.  This is not to say that I think Wade is a devil…I’m not really convinced he understands the mutually exclusive premises which form the crux of the steamy bottom of his philosophy.   And this is true for most Christians I would say.  That is why I am careful to categorize the BELIEFS and not necessarily the messengers as evil.  For I agree with Jesus in most cases that forgiveness is warranted because “they know not what they do”.

Of course, for Wade, as one who pretends to be a man of God, and who undoubtedly feels no shame in labeling himself a teacher of the “word”, he really should know better.  As to whether God will take that into account when judging Wade for the gut-wrenching destruction he is wreaking across the lives and souls of humanity…well, that’s up to Him.

At the beginning of his article Wade opens up with, “I am about to blow away everything you’ve ever been taught by mainstream religion”. That’s a nice try, but the fact is that Wade does just the opposite.  Wade confirms the very root of the typically Reformed orthodoxy of mainstream religion (by this I assume he means mainstream Protestantism, since he would undoubtedly need to be a scholar and an expert on countless world belief systems in order to blow away everything we’ve been taught…or he’d have to know absolutely that no one in his audience has any experience with any other religion outside of his peculiar and destructive brand of western gnosticism).  The fact is that there is simply nothing hopeful nor comforting about Wade’s article.  It is a false compassion and it espouses a false understanding of love, which is rooted in his impossibly irrational understanding of God and man at the metaphysical, moral, and epistemological levels.  And this?  Is nothing LESS nor MORE than mainstream religion.  This is the same shit we’ve always heard.  In his article, Wade operates under the assumption that what people are really missing…what they really need and that which has been sorely lacking in their lives is a “proper” (meaning…somehow reconcilable to the idea that God must naturally hate your guts the moment you are born, for this is precisely the bedrock assumption of Wade’s Reformed interpretations)…yes, a “proper” understanding of why they should love themselves.  But the fact is that that message is entirely irrelevant to Wade’s standard of doctrinal “truth”.  The only thing which man needs to understand is why they shouldn’t love themselves.  And, true to his Reformed roots, Wade’s article simply reinforces that tired old notion.  Because there can be no such thing as a love which can be reconciled to that which is its absolute opposite.  And that?  Is man.  Man is the very definition of what love is NOT.  Man is utterly at odds with love at his root.  And THAT is the message Wade is really proliferating in this article.  

And the worst and saddest part isn’t that I think he is aware of it, but that I’m pretty sure he is not.

Let me explain.

Wade’s article is a good example of how adept these Reformed pastors are at making an evil philosophy appear entirely altruistic, and themselves sanctimoniously concerned with the lives of everyday human beings. But the fact is that after two thousand years of codification and systematic integration into the psyche and culture of half the world, Reformed theology has become the default spiritual zeitgeist of our nation, and so it is no longer that difficult to present this evil and destructive world view as serious charity and compassion.  It has been done before, by many other devotees, and has successfully convinced whole nations to follow the presumption over the cliff and straight into hell where the logical conclusions always, always lead.  You simply cannot espouse a philosophy that worships the death of man and demands man’s utter banishment into determinist obscurity (i.e. the separating YOU from YOU) and concomitantly find that anything resembling love results.  And certainly the greatest evil is in implicating God in the scheme of reducing man to nothing but an extension of the violence of despots.

God is the Creator of man.  If we accept that (and we should…for there is no rational argument which excludes God for the existence of man or anything else) then we must accept that man has an objective and inherent VALUE which is rooted in his very existence; in his very SELF.  This naturally destroys the Reformed lie of Total Depravity, which is the bedrock of the entire school of thought.  Anyone who concedes the Total Depravity of man cannot possibly speak of an actual and efficacious love FOR that same man.  Anyone who says humanity is existentially a moral and epistemological failure and yet can be loved is a liar.  For it is impossible for that which is depravity incarnate to be made righteous or to receive righteousness; and thus, it cannot receive love nor in any way be joined to love.  For depravity is diametrically opposed o love by definition.  Depravity is rooted in the hatred of of the GOOD, by definition; but what is more is that that which is depravity itself is never in the position to make any sort of moral distinction.  And that is why Total Depravity is so vile.  It doesn’t assume humanity is merely evil; it assumes that humanity is evil and is completely unaware that it is evil.  It cannot recognize good as good because it has no frame of reference.  It is infinitely depraved which means that it only sees itself, by definition.  This removes God entirely from man, never ever to be reconciled; and it makes man the victim of his own epistemological failure.  He cannot know God because he cannon properly define God.  And a humanity which can never define God by virtue of its absolute metaphysical, epistemological, and moral  failure can never be in a position to receive God’s love.  But according to Wade’s article, we are to love ourselves because God loves us.  However, when Total Depravity is parsed out and taken to its only logical conclusion it becomes obvious that that which is totally depraved CANNOT EVER receive God’s love because, again, it is diametrically opposed to it.  It can never commune with God’s love because God’s love presents a contradiction to the absolute infinity of TOTAL depravity; and remember, Total Depravity says that man is not merely depraved but that he is depravity itself.  So if God loves man the assumption must be that man can efficaciously and rationally receive it.  Which must assume that man has some inherent VALUE to God which then can be reconciled to God’s affection; that man is INHERENTLY capable of receiving it .  And if this is true then man cannot be totally depraved, by definition.

But this is not what Wade is saying here.  You will notice in the article how Wade never, not ONCE, mentions that humanity has any inherent or autonomous value to God; that man is capable of offering something to God which God can love that is distinct to man, alone.  Wade concedes total depravity (I’ve read the statement of faith on his Church’s website).  And at the same time he is trying to convince you that loving yourself is possible.

It is not.

If you posses no autonomous, inherent value to God, then you are by definition totally depraved.  And as such, you are an insufficient receptacle for God’s love.  You are the utter antithesis of love.  So what Wade is really trying to say is that God somehow loves you in SPITE of you.  And as such your “loving yourself because God loves you” means that your love for yourself is nothing more than a direct extension of God’s love.  Meaning any “real” love you have for yourself cannot come from you, because Depravity cannot love.  The love you have for yourself comes directly from God, NOT from you at all.  Meaning that any love you have for yourself is actually nothing more than God loving you FOR you; and once again YOU as SELF are removed from the entire equation, because YOU do not really exist.  YOU are merely a function of the determining force of depravity, which somehow morphs into the determining force of God’s “sovereign grace” once he arbitrarily “elects/predestines” you.

There is nothing in Wade’s article that acknowledges any inherent moral and/or metaphysical worth within humanity, and thus there is nothing in Wade’s article which acknowledges the actual existence of man as a legitimate SELF.  This makes it impossible for God to actually love YOU…for you are NOT.

Finally, I just want to spend a moment discussing this quote, which occurs at the very beginning of the article:

“You should know my standard of truth is God’s word, not religion or the opinions of man.”

Now, I don’t want to engage in a long monologue about the fallacies of this statement because I have covered this idea somewhat in depth in the past.  However, though this statement may pull at one’s spiritual heartstrings and smack of a heavy dose of godly humility, the cold and hard fact remains that “God’s Word” as a standard of truth is simply irrational.  There is no way an argument can be made for an objective interpretation of Scripture whereby it can be said that Scripture is the sole interpreter of itself.  This results in a circular logic which makes the entire Bible completely irrelevant to man.  Since the Bible is axiomatically and categorically FOR man, man’s context must be considered in how it is interpreted.  And since all men and women are indeed individuals, the context considered must be an individual context.  This means that individual human life is the only rational standard for how the Bible is interpreted, because human life is the only rational standard of TRUTH.  If the Bible cannot exist without man, then it is logically obvious that the primary definition of truth and morality is human life.  Thus, if we want to claim that the Bible is true, its ideas must be rationally reconcilable to the objective of affirming and promoting individual human life, and the categorical right of human beings to own themselves since THEY are axiomatically and inexorably the prerequisite for all things being true; and that truth can only be born out if they are free to pursue themselves as a function of themselves.

For more information on this, you can peruse my other articles dealing with the notion of “biblical inerrancy”.

Finally, here are a couple more quotes from Wade on which I want to comment briefly:

“You come to see your absolute inability to be righteous before God by your conformity to any Law, and you come to rest by faith in Jesus!”

If human beings are “absolutely” unable to keep a law, then it must be because they are existentially insufficient.  Meaning, it is not choice that prevents them, it is the fact that they were born at all.  This makes the law irrelevant, and not only can it not be a rational standard of good it cannot point to a rational standard of good (Christ as the standard is assumed here).  For if an irrelevant law points to a standard, then the standard by extension is likewise irrelevant.

If there is a law for man then man must be able to follow it.  If he fails, it is because he chooses not to follow.  This makes doing good a function of obedience.  Of choice.  And Christians are loath to accept this because it necessitates a complete revision of their understanding of the purpose of Messiah.  And Christians in general tend to hate contradicting orthodoxy because they equate orthodoxy with God, Himself.

“Don’t misunderstand. There is a subtle difference between loving yourself and demanding others love you. Loving yourself means you are free from the pressure that others love you. What does it matter if others reject you if Jesus loves you and you love yourself?  Demanding others love you is a tell-tale sign that there is actually no self-love. Crazy as it may seem (I call it “upside-down-wisdom”),  the more you seek love the less you self-love.”

Perhaps.  But we must be sure that Wade is not conflating “self-love” with the inherent right of every individual to rationally demand that others respect their infinite worth, and not to violate their person (which includes the mind) and/or property.  This is not “pride”.  The defense of the individual’s right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness is the only moral justification for force.  Turning the other cheek may be useful in a given circumstance, but it is NOT a philosophy.  The right of each one of us to demand that we not be possessed by any other agent or entity (like the “church” or the “state”) is not indicative of a lack of self-love, it is indicative of PURE love, and of a rational mind.

“God actually owns all that you have, and you are but a steward of it all.”

No.  You eat and possess because you work, and this is biblical, not Wade’s statement.  Your property is a direct function of your work, which is a direct function of yourself.  If you don’t own your property you can have no claim to own yourself.  And only a very misleading proof text of Paul’s statement “you do not own yourself” can support the idea that humans are not the sole owners of their lives.  If you don’t own YOU then you have no claim to any justice, and this necessitates the assumption that you have no moral justification for your own existence.  Which is ludicrous and will eventually result a quick trip to the gas chamber.  Because saying that you do not own your property is a akin to the denial of human existence.  Personal property is categorically necessary to life; being merely a steward then demeans life, for it denies the single most practical thing require to LIVE: what you own.  And if it denies ownership, it denies life.

It is also a full-on assault on the idea that man possesses any rational and efficacious epistemology–that is, if you cannot be in a position to own, you are obviously not trustworthy to KNOW how to manage property in accordance with GOOD and TRUTH–but that’s a whole other article.

To my handful of hard-working, hard-slogging, hard-thinking, patient and long-suffering readers,

I will be on vacation for the next ten days.  I look forward to confounding the notions of reality and metaphysics, and even more, dismantling the evil and destructive assumptions of that false and heretical theology, Calvinism, which finds a new and even more egregious birth in the modern day fundamentalist neo-Reformed movement.

I have left you with a long and complicated post on the nature of divine and human “prediction”, wherein I discuss the theoretical idea of time, and how this posit is true:  There are only objects and relative movement.  Anything else is pure abstraction.

That should keep us all busy until I get back.  🙂

Paul,
I have great respect for your intelligence, but in this issue your logic is flawed.  What you are trying to suggest is a metaphysical and physical impossibility.  You are suggesting that election has everything to do with man, yet has really nothing to do with man.  Again, you must concede that your argument rests solely upon the idea that you accept contradiction (what some call “paradox”) to define your theology in this matter.
You are right in your assessment that all of life is DOING something, for even merely being is doing.  There is, in reality, no such thing as NOT doing; for that is merely an abstract way to qualify the doing, the abstract opposite of a particular action.  Since that is the case, everything having to do with man must involve man’s doing.  That is, man, IF it is truly HIS life, MUST logically be complicit in anything involving him.  Even “election”.  For  it is, again, impossible that God can do anything involving man that operates utterly outside of man’s doing/moving/being/existing, which is precisely what your definition of election (or your framing of the election/free will debate) attempts to do.  That constitutes a total contradiction in terms; a mutually exclusive idea that makes, again, man moot (which is ALWAYS what the doctrine of election does, I might add, because “election” always seems to get divorced from man, the OBJECT of the election. Which makes little sense).
Even in the most oppressive dictatorships the subjects to the leader/leaders must be complicit in their will.  They can resist, or comply.  There are consequences, truly, but nothing ultimately happens outside of man’s free choice in any matter, even if the choice is life or death.  Therefore, even in his “election” man must agree freely to the relationship, and this freedom can by no means and at no time become moot.  Man must freely engage his relationship with God, of his own will and choice, forever.  This is the faith that saves.  This is the faith that says that man is actually involved in a relationship with his God, and is not at any time compelled against his will, which is man’s VERY ESSENCE.  If the end of man is not his free ability to always been himself, then he cannot possibly exist. To say that God compels man outside of man means that God, in fact, usurps man’s very existence, possesses him, and becomes him, in order to save him.  This of course, as I have often said, a metaphysical impossibility.  This puts man outside himself, and this is what reformed theology also does.
Unfortunately, and no offense, but your view of election is much closer to that of the Calvinists that you seem to think.   The root of the argument is free will/election and how we reconcile them.  If you get that wrong, then, as I said before, it ultimately boils down to whose irrational theology is more…er, rational.  If at any point we cede man’s will to God, then man ceases to be relevant.  And thus, man ceases to exist.
And it isn’t a matter of who is going to hell for their theology, necessarily.  If you decide what you believe based on “will I go to hell for thinking this”, then I would argue that EVERY belief should be thoroughly analyzed, the logical consistency found, and ideas based on rational conclusions.  Otherwise, you really cannot be sure what is truly “disputable” or not.  We cannot take “won’t go to hell for this” at face value.

How do we say that God is ever present?  Can we even define present in terms of duration?  How is God I AM if we cannot put a number of time–a duration–on “now”.  How does God exist “eternally” if we cannot quantify what that means?  How should we thus interpret “time” if we cannot even quantify the centerpiece of it?  How do we describe the nature of our existence, exactly, if we cannot quantify a “present moment”, a “now”, and if the past and the future are theoretical?  By that I mean, how do you touch or see the past?  How do you touch or see the future?  If there is no duration of present, and past and future cannot be touched, seen, or felt, then how can we define our reality? What is the quantifiable nature of it?  As far as I can tell, there is only space, mass, and movement.  Any notion of “time” is merely a way of measuring the movement of objects in space.  To then ascribe “past” and “future” as a real entity means that we effectively declare something that is unobservable, intangible as ACTUAL.  Hmm….I’m wondering how exactly we get away with this; and, again, if the future is real, then it must be fixed (determined).  There is no way around this.

The only way around a determined future, and thus an ultimate concession of Calvinism/Reformed theology is to deny that the future is actual—to declare it a theoretical construct of time, which is simply a mathematical measurement of motion in space.  This is the only way a human being can have free will/free volition, and real choice.  It is the only way natural law can be actually natural LAW; meaning, that a cause can really create an effect.  It is the only way anything can have been created by God without being just an extension of Him.  There is only NOW and MOVEMENT; and this movement in space is driven by cause and effect LAW, and man’s conscious, volitional manipulation of these laws, which results in further movement-as-effect of choice. 

The good news is that this is the truth.  We do not NEED a future, or a past.  All we need is self-awareness and space to move in.

I declare, therefore, that not only is determinism/predestination false, it is impossible in our current reality.  Our interpretation of God’s foreknowledge and “election” must be rendered compatible with the reality of our existence.  If there is a “REAL” future, then there is not really US.  And if there is not really US, then God is also a lie.  And if He isn’t, we cannot truly know Him anyway.  Thus, He is a functional lie to us…or at the very least, irrelevant.  

If we exist, we must exist in the present, but how do you put a number on that which doesn’t signify a moving of time from a point to a point?

You see a light from a star.  Astrophysicists say you are looking at the past.  But that isn’t true.  We are seeing evidence of a past.  We are seeing light that is now.  Not then…because we cannot touch the past.  We can see and feel things only now; and these things do not point to a past moment in “time”–as if that were even possible for objects which exist in a space not their own–they are only indicative of a movement which has occurred.  “When” it occurred is not a declaration of anything real; but merely a measurement of the event itself on a fictional timeline.  The only thing real is the movement, the only real “when” it occurred is NOW, because all existence; all movement can only take place in the “present”.  It cannot take place i the “past”, because…where is the past?  Show me the location?  When isn’t real…”when” is always abstract.  Thus, it is a construct of MAN’S consciousness.   We are seeing the light now, just like we see everything now.

We think we know much.  I think we know very little. And yet, we rush to our assumptions of the nature of God.  We proclaim we know so much about Him; and where we do not understand, we proclaim in our arrogance “paradox”.  As if that is a real answer. Instead of being honest, we arrogantly assume that “is” and “is not” is a TRUTH on which to rest our faith.

Calvinists and non Calvinists alike, when they concede a future for God to know (and His knowledge is perfect, by definition, which means this “future” is fixed, and cannot be changed) concede the same thing.  Man is not himself.  Man is a predetermined collection of acts that God has ALREADY done for him.

If we proclaim God knows the things we will do, then, to God, we’ve already done them.  But, yet, not us…because how can we do something before we do it?  How can God know it before we do it?  Unless He determined we do it BEFORE we do it?

No…there MUST have been a time where we DID what we did and CHOSE what we chose, BEFORE God knew it.  That is the only way free choice can ever be real.  And the answer is this:

Deny time.  That is, deny time as an actual phenomenon.  Declare it for what it is:  an abstract construct; a quantification man devised in order to measure/categorize movement.  Movement is real; space is real; objects are real.  All existence is done now, and that is when God can know what man and Creation does.  He can know only NOW.  As an omnipotent being, it is impossible for God to know things that do not exist.  It is redundant, for one.  And, in addition, not even God can proclaim logical contradictions as true.  God cannot declare something that does not exist, and never has nor will exist, as existing.

I understand that this idea is not likely to be accepted in my lifetime.  So be it.  But the facts of my argument are undeniable.  It is undeniable that free will can be true if the future is real and known by God.

It is also undeniable that past and future cannot be seen, felt, or observed, but that all reality is seen in the present only…and even present is something that cannot truly be quantified.  Thus, all that we can say is REAL is: space, objects, movement (via energy).

How does God know a future that He did not determine? It is impossible. It just is. Which is why I cannot accept that God knows the future. No event exists until it comes to pass…how is this not axiomatic to everyone? There is no future to know because the future isn’t yet real.  How can God know something that does not exist?  And if it does, but it has not yet come to pass by any volition of man, the God must have created it, because only two things exist:  God, and whatever He creates.  So, again, if there is something God proclaims is REAL, like a perfectly KNOWN future, then He must have been the one to ordain it, because, since it doesn’t exist to man, man COULD NOT have created it.  Man cannot make choices himself that he hasn’t yet made.  So if God declares a future “choice” made, then HE must have made it, because man could not have, because the future, by definition, is not yet.

I’m still unclear why this poses such a challenge to the thinking of Christians.  If we declare a future already known by God then He must have determined it.  Thus, there is NO free choice because you cannot have a choice that is pre-determined by God.  Choice is a total illusion. Choice is not a paradox; it is not a mystery; it is lie.

I am not trying to be difficult, I am just stating a fact. God cannot know the future if He didn’t determine it.  And if He didn’t determine it then it isn’t fixed, which means He can’t know it perfectly. Which means He isn’t God. If God, who creates time, declares something to exist BEFORE it is brought about then He must be the One who created it. And if He determines our choices then they are not really our choices.

I maintain that the only way God can know what happens is WHEN it happens…He only knows our choices W”HEN we make them.  Anything less is in fact determinism. If not, I would love to know how that squares with metaphysical reason.  What we need to do then is reconcile this fact with how it might look to US when an eternal, omnipresent God interacts and speaks to humans. Will it look like He knows the future? Does He declare future events? Well sure, but that doesn’t mean they are the future to HIM. We have no problem conceding that God can be everywhere at once. Why then can we not concede that He, since reality and the universe is both space AND time, is also everyWHEN at once. And if He is, then there is no future to Him. He cannot know the future because God, by definition, has no future.

Can someone please explain to me what relevance there is in God knowing the future.  Why does God have to know the future?  That is, why is it important to Him? What difference does it make whether He knows it or not?  If He doesn’t know it, will His plans somehow be thwarted? What purpose of God; what power of God; what NEED of God is there in knowing the future?  How does knowing the future do anything but diminish His omnipotence?

Come on people!  Think about it!  Do you worship an omnipotent God or a God who is influenced by the same reality as we are?  What is a future to God who is in ALL time?  How can God possibly know a future that HE is IN already?  And if He is in it already, how is it the future?  How is the past the past? How can God predetermine anything if everything is NOW to Him?  God creates!  God doesn’t “know” or have a “future” or “past” in a way that you and I would think of it.  What is there for God to know?  What is there in a “future” that doesn’t include Him?  And if God knows all things, it is because He created them, and He exists NOW to everything, so knowledge and time are moot and irrelevant and redundant to God.  God CREATES!  A being that creates everything NOT HIM has no need to know anything.  He only has to BE.

If you have already read the post on “chance” below, please re-read it, if you don’t mind.  This morning I realized that the initial post required some significant additional information.  I’m not sure it makes it easier to understand, but it makes my argument more cohesive and coherent.

Thanks!

(NOTE to readers:  Post has been revised and edited; however, this process is still ongoing…forgive any grammatical errors or confusing details/explanations/discussion, etc.)

Before we begin to unravel the “paradox” (which is really nothing but an impossible contradiction…as the Calvinists teach it anyway) of free will versus election, we must first begin by taking a philosophical look at the nature of time.  For unless we understand time as it relates to us and as it relates to God, there can be no ultimate reconciliation of these two seemingly clear biblical ideas…that is, again, free will of man versus God’s “election” of certain men or women to salvation before they were born because God is omniscient AND omnipotent.

Man’s culpability and God’s omnipotence Man are both ideas that can be scripturally acknowledged by looking at various texts that, at least ostensibly, speak directly to them and declare them, thus, both “biblical”.  But what isn’t so clear is the relationship between these two ideas.  Therefore, the doctrine of election (or some use the term “predestination”…I understand that, strictly speaking, there are some differences in the meaning of these two terms, however, for the purposes of this essay, I will consider them the same thing) is born in an attempt to frame these ideas in a way that they can be understood to be both at practical, if not wholly explainable, work within the lives of Christians as they walk out their faith.

It is hard to reconcile the two, and in truth, election does more to obfuscate the issue than clarify it, but, having said that, it isn’t hard to imagine why church scholars and philosophers and theologians the world over have found it necessary to develop a doctrine that at least in some way explains how these two ideas work together and how they are to be perceived and applied.  The only other option, it would seem, is to live out our life of faith with the glaring problem of contradictory scriptural theologies defining our very faith itself; and moreover, defining the nature of our very existence.  Can we or can’t we?  What is the answer?  How do when explain it when the seekers of life inevitably ask us to do so?  How do I know that I know what I know?  How do I know if I’ve truly chosen what I think I’ve chosen?  It’s kind of hard to feel at ease in such an instance, for many of us at least.  The solution, as it appears in many schools of thought, but particularly Calvinism, is, again, the doctrine of “election”.  That God predestines you before you exist, period, because He is God and He is Holy…and you are decidedly NOT.  This is the salve that is supposed to sooth the inquisitive soul of the believer so that he or she can move on to the “more important” work of the faith. No need to wrestle with such heady questions…questions which, as we all too commonly hear, have plagued man for hundreds of years.  The implication, of course being: who are YOU to try to figure it out.  Best if you leave that to the doctrine of “election” and move on.  It’s easy.  God chose you because He CAN, because He’s God.

The only problem is, of course, that doctrine of election doesn’t really do anything at all except to highlight the problem; to make it even more apparent.  The doctrine is really simply a formalized version of the question.  That is, it is the declaration that the question IS in fact the ANSWER.

This being the case, the issue always seems to boil down to the same old debate:  Are you an Arminian or are you a Calvinist?  Do you believe that man has utter free-will to do as he pleases and that the idea that God “elects” anyone to heaven or hell is merely a figment of poor bible interpretive methods and/or an issue lost in translation, so to speak; or are you one who feels that man is depraved, would never freely choose Christ and thus must be compelled, or “elected”, by God for salvation; thus, the idea of free will, because of the sinful “nature” is also merely a product of poor interpretive methods, or the mere fantasy of a group of believers who wish to elevate hope over reason; to say that sinful man can actually, in any way, effect his eternal reward for righteousness.  Preposterous.

This is almost always where it ends up.  Now, since we know where it ends, then, how do Christians then proceed down their path of moral obligation in the face of such contradictory doctrines to that obligation like “election”, or proceed to tell God that they can choose good just fine, thank You very much, and will, in spite of their “obvious” inability to do ANYTHING that isn’t tainted with sin at its ROOT, effect our own salvation when we are good and ready.

Now, the more moderate, or less fundamental, as it were, of Christian thinkers, be them functional Calvinists or Arminians (and by functional, I mean those not bogged down in the details of their theology’s root doctrinal inconsistencies and hypocrisies, because they either don’t care, don’t know, or can’t know (i.e. do not possess cognitive ability to discern the inconsistencies and contradictions unless pointedly spelled out for them; which, given the prevalence of neo-Calvinist churches in the U.S. for example, isn’t happening all that often) generally fall into the category of:

1. They both are true

2. They both seem to contradict one another

3. It really doesn’t bear much explanation beyond that, because the fact is that God can do anything, thus, we just have to live with it and move on, focusing on what we can explain (which, I should add, if you are a Calvinist, isn’t much, by definition, except:  I am sin.  God does not like sin.).

As an aside, I even had a friend appeal to eastern religious philosophies and their acceptance of and incorporation of “paradoxes” into their world views as how he managed to reconcile the seemingly contradictory ideas.  It seems as though there are those who won’t even hesitate to venture out of Christianity itself for answers to the contradictions that Christianity seems to present.  Now, I have no problem with doing this…I have nothing against eastern religions except that I think they are false.  But having said that, I do struggle with the idea that ANOTHER religion has to explain why mine doesn’t make sense, ostensibly.  I think my religion does make sense, frankly, and I intend to prove it by using the metaphysics of reason and logic; which, as I have said I believe, is the SOUL of man itself, and which, by the way, I do not accept is an appeal to merely western schools of though on epistemology.  I hold that the roor premise of reason, defined in my other posts, is particular to MAN, and by man I mean ALL men and women.  Culture and religion and custom are irrelevant.  What matters is the ABILITY to grasp abstract concepts.  The metaphysics of reason are worth knowing not because they are cute, or they are fun, or they make one appear a really deep thinker.  No, it is because without them man cannot exist, period.  And neither can a Creator.  I don’t care what you believe about who God is…it is His HOW that cannot change from one group to the next.  Anyone who claims otherwise puts his or her faith in nothing except faith itself, which is nothing. But that’s okay, because faith is something, and that faith will always concede my premise.  So, though men believe differently, they are rational whether they admit it or not.  That’s THEIR paradox.

In this essay, I appeal to neither the doctrine of election nor of free will, but rather, the idea that both are each other; that is, they exist in symbiosis.  With one, you must have the other, and also, then, the converse would be true.

First, let me begin where I probably should have started already:  with a cursory definition of the terms “free will” and “election”.  Of course, I realize that I have already essentially defined election, however, I will repeat myself; for repetition can be useful, and even more so in my posts, I’m afraid, due to their tedious nature.

Election is the doctrine that says God is purely responsible for deciding who gets saved, plain and simple.  God elects people before they are born to be saved, period.  You are going to heaven because God chose you (though most Calvinists will not concede that the choice to save you is arbitrary, they cannot offer any reasonable explanation; on the contrary, they often, ironically, harp on the idea that there is in fact NO reason that you should have been chosen at all; so, though they may not concede it’s arbitrary, they often argue that it really is, whether they know it or not) to go, and for no other reason, not even your accepting Christ; for it is argued that your acceptance is first due to the power of the Holy Spirit to give you a faith that you cannot resist….now, of course, Calvinists would argue semantics, but what this means and what the root of the logic is, is still unchanged, despite their many equivocations and protests: the God accepts Himself on your behalf.

The reasons behind this have to do with the idea that fallen man is, by nature, in rebellion against God and thus, without the Holy Spirit’s deliberate choosing of man on behalf of man, man–that is, the “elect”man–would never choose God of his own volition.  Thus, again, anyone saved must first have been “elected” by God.  Man had no functional part to play in his salvation except for adding his “sin”.  That is the Calvinist argument.  (Needless to say there are a host of metaphysical problems with this idea, beyond just the issue of God choosing “for” man.  Suffice to say, for now, that this idea of election is a ladder of interchanging rungs of contradiction and redundancy.)

On the other hand, tree will is the idea that man possess the functional and rational capability to know God and to accept Him as Savior by which he may inherit eternal life with God.  People who hold to the idea of “free will” over election generally argue that accepting Christ is not a “good work” and thus does not fall into the category of “works” which the Apostle Paul declares impossible by which to be saved.  The tertiary understanding is that man is both free to do good and evil, and thus may garner the praise or condemnation of God in a just sense (that is, a metaphysically and morally consistent (reward for good, punishment for evil, culpability of man depends on man’s ability to obey, which must be innate and real, otherwise, justice may be legally consistent (God can do whatever He wants; He’s God), but not necessarily morally consistent), because man can, in fact, independently do true “good” and true “evil”, and does not rely upon the Holy Spirit to make a work good, per se; that is, the Holy Spirit is not necessary to make a work “good”; it’s goodness is found in man’s obedience to the moral standard, not in the perfunctory status of man IN Christ AFTER salvation, and that the obedience is rooted in man’s ability to reason, not in the Holy Spirit’s compelling man to do “good” which he could not otherwise do, for reasons that 1. man cannot do good, for even his good works are bad, and 2. any good work man does is only via the Holy Spirit, thus, man is NEVER doing any good himself, so all good he does is really God doing for him.

The idea of free will has little trouble metaphysically.  I have always maintained that in order for man to exist, he must be free to know good and to choose it as a function of his innate ABILITY.  Otherwise, man is removed from the equation.  He is a puppet of the inexorable force of his sinful nature, which he cannot help, or the inexorably force of the Holy Spirit, which he cannot help.  Man is thus both saved and condemned for the exact same reason:  because he exists…because he IS, period.   (The Calvinists dispute this by referring to Adam’s sin; however, this means that as a consequence of Adam’s sin, God revoked, apparently, Adam’s free will, thus, again, who is ultimately responsible for Adam’s “sin nature”? All consequences of the fall are from God,by definition.  One cannot argue that Adam of his own free will stripped his free will.  This is an impossible contradiction.  Only God can remove free will by substituting one “core”of man’s “ability” with another.)

The problem, as I can deduce, with the idea of free will is that it does not adequately explain how God’s omnipotence plays a role.  God knows, and surely if God knows then God, by definition, must have DONE as well…God cannot know unless it actually BE, for it is impossible (though this is an idea that MUST be explained in detail, and it will be) for God to guess, predict, or even think theoretically.  The ability of God to think is the power of God to create…He needs no language, He only needs to conceive, and the conception becomes TRUE.  Predestination, insofar as we definite as God knowing, and thus, declaring, must mean there is purpose for those who are saved, and that this purpose was consciously known and declared by God at the beginning of creation.  This is the definition of predestination.  But free will as a doctrine does not account acceptably for this definition. That is a considerable problem, even in spite of free will’s metaphysical consistencies, and its appropriate and just reason for punishment and reward.

Moving on to context.

As I said before, the nature of my argument depends on the proper context.  And this is nothing special, for this is the case with everything that has ever been created.  Creation is itself contextual.  It is contextual to itself as a created thing, and the components of it are contextual to their environments and situations, and even the Bible and revelation of God, Himself, is contextual to creation.  as is the case with everything that has been created, I submit).  And the context is, of course, time.  Time is the idea that forms the ground upon which the ideas of “election” and “predestination” rest.  And it is this topic to which we will now turn.

It is my firm belief that the reason for the contradiction of free will and predestination has to do with the inappropriate application of man’s sequential, temporal existence in space to BOTH ideas, but specifically the idea of “election”.  In other words, we box the doctrines into our understanding of time.  And, as we are dealing with a God who is, by definition, omnipresent, any discussion of ANY doctrine which predicates the interpretation of it to the understanding of man’s time continuum seems quite doomed, logically and metaphysically, from the start.

Now would be a good time to confess that I am decidedly NOT a physicist.  Therefore, I freely admit that the following ideas of time are merely rooted in my personal understanding of metaphysics as it relates to my faith and the facts that:

1.  Man’s physical and psychological existence is, quite obviously, dependent on the concept of sequential causes and effects which are both allowed and limited by space.  For all thoughts and actions are given both ability and meaning by this idea that time is sequential movement (action/cause and effect/ect.. Note:  I hesitate to say “linear” time because, in accordance with my theory, man’s action may yes, be in a sense linear, I am concerned that the use of this term would create an understanding of some how a “straight line”; and what I say is that the line need not be straight, necessarily, but merely sequential.  Meaning, that the line can physically go up, down, left, right, curved, circular, diagonal, forward or even backwards in space, it just cannot go inward on itself…again, physically speaking.  Metaphysically, this will be, yes, linear time; going forward, NOT backward.  But physically, again, the proper terms are “outward” and “inward”, and so the line of action or sequence doesn’t always have to be straight.  So, I prefer the term “sequential”, because it works well regardless of whether we are speaking physically or metaphysically.)

And…

2.  God’s existence is NOT dependent on sequential existence within a certain confine of space by which He is allowed to act.  That God is His own space, and is not bound to a sequential temporal existence BY this fact, and thus, all of His actions can occupy the SAME space at the SAME moment, by definition.  Since He is His own space, He has all the space He needs in Him, do do whatever He wills, and as much as He wills, which is everything that is HIM; and thus all of his actions are within the confines of Himself; thus, it follows, again, that all actions and movements of God are done in the same space at the exact same moment.  In other words, God is by no means bound to the physical law that two or more things cannot occupy the same “space” at the same “time’.  He only occupies Himself, and thus, all His actions are in the same space, at the same moment, because God does not need physical movement as WE understand it to act, like we do.    He cannot move in Himself because any talk of movement implies external space, which He does not need, because all of His space is Himself, which is, by definition, infinite, and all is Him.  There is no space in Himself that is not Him, so all His acts occur simultaneously…because they must.  Any talk of of any other way immediately implies that God needs “space” or “room” to move, and if every part of God IS God, it MUST be that every act of God happens simultaneously in the same space.  Metaphysically, there can be no disputing this unless we forfeit the idea that God is omnipresent, and that that omnipresence constitutes all of Himself, and there is nothing besides Him in which he must “move”.  If we forfeit this, then God is no longer God.  Thus, this metaphysical argument MUST be true; if it is not, we are not talking paradox, we are talking imperfect Creator, and thus, we are no longer talking the God of Israel, or Christ.

Therefore, when speaking of any topic that implies “time” in some way or another, we must be careful that we frame the idea within a correct understanding of how “time” relates to us versus how it relates to God; and to recognize that time is a necessary function of our ability to exist, and it has absolutely, conversely, nothing to do with God’s ability to exist.  God is not limitless time or limitless space, then.  He is NO space and NO time, by definition.  Space and time are manifestations of our reality, that exist in order that man can act.  They have nothing to do with how God exists; for He needs nothing to exist except for Himself.  Thus, God will and can never subjugate himself ultimately to our concept of time.  Before ANY explanation of a topic like “election”, or “foreknowledge” can take place a correct understanding of this must be apprehended.  We must remember tat God is outside of anything in creation, including time.  This will fundamentally effect any doctrine that claims that God can “know something before it occurs”. By definition, temporal terms like “before”, or future, past, etc., cannot apply to God.  The Bible may speak of terms such as these, however, one will notice that the Bible is speaking of man’s existence…man’s reality, that is, not Gods.  “Before you were born, I knew you”.  Is a true statement, however, the “before” applies only to man, not God.  For it is true that before YOU were born God knew YOU; but this doesn’t necessarily imply that God was there BEFORE as well.  There was a “before” to your existence, but in terms of how God exists, there was never a time he was “before” you.  Time is not how God exists, therefore, the concept of before has no meaning to God.  You are what you are what you are, and always are to God.  The idea of before and after is LIMITED TO CREATION.  But this, of course, does not make time merely an illusion.  As I have already stated, the idea of time is how we exist.  We are a series of sequential actions, both physically and mentally.  Because we cannot occupy the same space at the same time, our existence necessitates our reality.  This being the case, we do create our reality by acting in accordance with our ABILITY to act; that is, things are actually effected because WE actually do them.  Thus, the entirety of our IS, as a function of how God understands us, is also made up of the choices that WE made in service to that IS.  You cannot separate the reality of the outcomes of our choices with the reality that God exists in a perpetual state of present.  And though we may see our choices and actions “of the future” as not yet existing–and truly they do not, until they do…that is, until we make them–these choices that we will make, and are not existing until we make them, as a function of our sequential reality, are, in fact a REAL aspect of our entire existence, to God.  The sequential aspect to our existence–and this is important–is only real in OUR reality, in OUR creation.  It has absolutely nothing to do with God’s existence.  God is outside of our sequential existence.  This does not mean he cannot interact with us, it simply means that our concept of time is never applicable to God.

Having said this, we understand that God always sees us in our moment.  He also sees all the choices we have made, and knows the outcome because all of those choices are in fact, truly, and utterly parts of us, in the same way as our eyes, or hands are parts of us.  When he sees us, he sees all our choices, already made. And those choices are, in fact inevitable…but they are inevitable, not because God “fore ordained them”, but because WE made them.  They are a part of us like our hands and feet.  They are US, they are not God.  God foreordained our existence, and created us, yes, and in such a way, it can be said that God in a sense fore ordains our actions; however, those actions are actions that WE took, in order that they are actually US, and not God.  So, when God created us, he also created the choices that WE made.  But, this doesn’t mean that WE did not make them.  What is important here is to understand that we cannot divorce ourselves from our choices anymore than we can divorce ourselves from our physical bodies.  They are part of what makes us, US.

The question then becomes, of course: how then is God not ultimately responsible?  He made our choices like He made our bodies, therefore He must be to blame for all we do.  Clarification:  He created us, and in doing so, He created our choices; however, it must be understood that WE are the ones who MAKE the choices.  God created our ENTIRE existence, and the choices we make are part of that existence, however, that doesn’t mean we didn’t actually DO the choosing.   He created us, and he created us having made the choices WE made.

But how is this possible?  Well, this is where our temporal existence comes into play; and as far as I can tell it is the only metaphysical explanation that fully implements man’s obvious free will and abililty to effect his reality and his choices with God’s omniscience and omnipresence.  Put simply, it is “time” which makes this metaphysically possible. When God created “time”, that is, created us in order to function as a series of actions predicated on abstract concepts, sequentially manifested, He created the ability to reconcile man’s culpability with His conscious knowledge and experience of EVERYTHING.

So, how does time make this possible?  How does time make this very tedious and confusing but metaphysically NECESSARY idea of man’s free choice coupled with God’s creation of us, including the choices we make?  The answer is found in a simple theory I constructed, and which I call: Retroactive Inevitability of Choice (RIC).  And that is the topic of our next post.  Following that, more on “time”, and those subsequent posts will incorporate the metaphysical understanding of time, and RIC.

(NOTE: As I stated previously, the fact that God can quite easily interact with creation as a function of our understanding of time; however, we must always realize that that interaction does NOT imply limitation.  Simply because he can interact with man on man’s level, does not imply that his is bound to our laws of space and time.  For God can certainly control his power, but He cannot forsake it so that it becomes moot to Him. This would constitute and impossible contradiction of Himself by Himself, and is not, thus, logically or metaphysically possible.)

I know that I have advertised that my site will be dedicated to dismantling the faulty and contradictory metaphysical premises of Calvinism and reformed theology in general.  In order to do this, certain philosophical foundations must be laid.  With the posts on “ability” what I am trying to do is convey the idea that in order for man to exist as a creation of God, he MUST be fully able in and of himself.  The preceding posts are an explanation of HOW that is.  Coming up will be a focus on WHY.  If we don’t start with how, though, the why is of little use.  But the why is very, very important.  As I said, the root of all of this will be to not just to show, but to prove that reformed theological assumptions are simply not metaphysically possible, and that by applying them, we both undo God and man.  Of this, I am thoroughly convinced.

Now, I recognize that many of you have already arrived at the conclusions regarding the inconsistency of Calvinist theology, and its fallacy as evidenced by the disastrous practical consequences it inflicts upon the masses.  But dismantling their metaphysics/philosophy by using your OWN to prove them wrong, though, will eliminate the single greatest tool the Calvinist demagogues have:  their ability to define the interpretive premises of every debate…the doctrine that drives the actions.

Notice how almost every argument you engage in with a Calvinist starts with you assuming their very metaphysical premises (e.g. man is sinful at his root/total depravity; cannot do “good” until after conversion; has a “free” will driven by an external “sin” nature (thus, making it not free at all), “original sin”, predestination/free-will paradox, and thus, free will must always give way to God’s greater power of “control”, that God functionally “controls” His creation, and “creates” futures that we just walk through, or not, according to His whim…and on and on).  Once we explain why we will no longer concede their faulty premises by countering with our own better metaphysical premises that they must accept, dismantling the doctrine and marginalizing their theology should be elementary.

Now, one final thing.  In my blog I will soon (once the posts on ABILITY are finished…which, the one below this post should be the last I have to say on the matter, unless some astute reader poses a great question or objection; incidentally, a LOT of what I just wrote on the matter came from a great bit of constructive criticism to a post of mine by Nick from Scotland over at the Wartburg Watch…many thanks to him)…anyway, I will next unravel the free-will/election “paradox”. I will prove that these doctrines are not paradoxical, but are, in fact, symbiotic.  That is, one drives the other; they cannot exist apart, and THAT is why you see them throughout the Bible.

Now, many view this as a futile endeavor…a secondary issue at best, a paradox we have to live with.  However, I could not disagree more.  It is a primary issue of the greatest import, in that by dismantling it, and showing how both are not simply metaphysically true but both MUST (and yes, free will) be true will, I believe, amount to the single greatest blow to reformation theology that is out there.  If it can be metaphysically proven that man MUST have free will, then everything from total depravity to inability to “election” crumbles.

It all started with a little conversation I had with a friend when I was 18 (more like an argument).  This discussion was forgotten for many years, until recently, where musing extensively on it has culminated in a theory I call: Retroactive Inevitability of Choice.

That’s next.

-Argo

The argument I have heard in opposition to my concept of man’s Ability being the core of his existence is that only “hard” nouns are real.  By this, I mean, those things present in the physical environment, which are not apprehended by abstraction.  That is, the physical comes first, and then the abstract concept follows…in other words, everything real in regards to what man can do must stem from biology, because Ability is abstract, thus, it MUST by a byproduct of the physical (the argument then really is that all truth flows from the tangible; which, of course, is very problematic from many people, not just people who believe in God).  For if abstract concepts are only real insofar as they are products of the physical, then, where does that lead us?  Man IS God.  However, if we agree that abstract concepts (like laws of nature, for example) are real and true and exist APART from man, then we must agree that, at least theoretically, that “Ability”, apart from physical biology, could certainly be true and real even though the concept is abstract.

At any rate, the idea, if I have it correctly, is that one starts with the hard noun (as I call it) and then what develops is an agreed upon abstract concept to describe some aspect or some “other” meaning from this thing.  Thus, the premise is that the abstract concepts are not really “real”.  The only thing that is real is what can be apprehended by the senses.  So, Ability, because it can only physically be apprehended by the senses when it is “doing” or in action, is not real, but merely a conceptual byproduct of the natural, physical thing…the hard noun.  So, biology comes first, then the ability…which seems strangely opposite:  what this is saying is that biology must act before it is ABLE to act; and this seems to me to make less sense than saying biology acts because it is first able to do so.

So—moving on— Ability is the “hole” which is an imagined, abstract byproduct of the physical body.  There is no power which drives the “doing” that is not first stemming from the physical body…the biology of the human.  The functional premise is that nothing we cannot readily perceive with our five senses actually exists.

That, to me, is a very literal interpretation of reality, and it calls into question just how then, abstract concepts can be realized as things which can be apprehended with the five senses.  If abstract concepts are not real, how is a concept fomented in the mind, and then realized as a product?  Case in point: language.  By using the above argument, one could say that language is not real.  It is only the byproduct of the physical actions, moved by biology.  However, if it is not real, then how is it organized in the mind?  How can something so non-existent be so literally apprehended, and effect such real, tangible outcomes?  And thus we are left with the problem of this:  if something is abstract, thus not real, how can it be true?  By definition, something that doesn’t exist cannot be true.  It cannot be anything, by definition, and thus, how is it possible?  So we need then to understand what we mean when we speak of the concept of “real”.  How do we define “real”?  If by real, we mean only the tangible universe, then any abstract concept, from language, to mathematical formulas, to ideas, to philosophies to whatever anything is not real. And yet, if they are not real…if they are merely holes in existence, then how can they effectuate what is so obviously grasped by the physical senses.  Walk outside and see a building…have a conversation via text…express a feeling in language.  If the abstract concepts which made these things possible and physical realities are not real themselves, then how is it they form such an integral part of our physical universe?  So we need to understand that the laws which are abstract, but which can create functional, physical reality which proves itself true by virtue of apprehending the product via the senses MUST be just as real as the biology which grasps them.  Thus, concepts which are apprehended by the mind (not NECESSARILY created by the mind) are as real as anything in the physical universe.  For if nothing abstract could be real, then by definition, it could not translate into anything real, either.  For it is impossible for the non-existent to produce something that exists.  Biology (man’s mind) uses the REAL concepts it grasps to create.  It doesn’t create the concept, in order that it be real, so that it can be employed in the creation of something physical.  This makes no sense.

In this way, then, one can argue that man’s Ability (what I call the root of his existence), is real, and is REALIZED by biology, not CREATED by biology.  Biology cannot create something not real, and then function with tangible, logical, consistent outcomes as though it were real.  If biology created ability, then ability could not be abstract (and what we would be saying, again, is that biology must act first BEFORE it is able to act…again, a logical and philosophical contradiction).  For the physical cannot create a REAL abstract concept (something not apprehended by the five senses), for if it could, then what we are saying is that the biological can create other-worldly (for lack of a better term) concepts (can create something out of nothing).  However, I argue that this is impossible.  The only PRODUCT of the physical must be something that is also physical.  Thus, abstract concepts are discovered by biology, and proved as being real and true by the tangible product they produce in the world…what man creates is the physical, which is a result of true and real laws and concepts which he has grasped by his innate ability (reason, being one)…which is itself the reality (though, in this life, it may well be abstract) that makes man’s DOING of anything possible, including the grasping of true conceptual realities.  This goes back to Locke’s work on Human Understanding.  The human mind is something which discovers the truths of the world, abstract and physical…it is not something which creates truth.  And as such, again, man is a product of the very real abstract concept of Ability, by which he discovers.  If Ability does not come first, but only the biological, then I argue man cannot apprehend any truth, and thus, could not create as a function of employing conceptual, abstract ideas.  He would exist as the animals exist.  As a function of creation, not as a function of God and himself; and moved by instinct only, and not able to employ any “truths” in the abstract sense.  The biological cannot function unless it is ABLE to function.  It is this Ability, which drives its action.  To argue that ability is not real because it is an abstract concept is to argue that man creates the abstract laws of all the universe and creation instead of discovers them.  If this is true, then we make man, God.  Man creates something out of nothing, by definition.  This is not in keeping with what we know to be true of man, and logic, and is certainly not in keeping with the Christian faith.  Ability must be present before man can exist as a physical entity capable of producing anything “real”.