Christian Existentialism - Part 2.1

Epistemology Continued...

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 1.

In my last post I said this:

Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is.

I know I said that I'd take on the "Materialist Conception of God's Relationship to Creation" charge, but there are a few more things I need to note on the epistemological differences that fueled the debate a couple of weeks ago. I am now sure, as I noted in a comment in my last post, what his authority is, and I want to mention it, openly and clearly, and then pull some implications from it.

At one point in the correspondence, exist noted this as his "authority."

In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent...

...the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.

Note the words I emphasized above. I completely overlooked the implications of his notion of "authority" when I addressed them in the last post. If the authority of the Scripture, councils, and creed is derived from our "deliberate choosing" individually and corporately, then I must ask: who is really the authority? Logically, we are. Moreover, it follows from his comments that the Scriptures, councils, and creed are authoritative only if we give that position to them. I have two objections for exist in light of this.

First, exist~dissolve alluded that if we call the Scriptures the "self-revelation" of God, then the Scriptures must logically be consubstantial with God, and that would be idolatry. His position of authority permits him to decide for himself what idolatry is, but it annihilates any right for him to tell us what idolatry is. For him to do so, especially since he defines authoritative as a entirely subjective ideal, would imply that there is an objective authority by which he may judge us against. However, if he were to follow his premises to their logical outcomes, then it should not matter to him what I believe. Since he so ardently tells us how wrong we are, the Reformed creeds do seem to matter quite a bit.

Second, as noted in my comment on my previous post, Christ on several occasions mentioned that "His words shall never pass." Also, in John 12, Jesus tells us this:

44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak."

Before I begin, the word "authority" in verse 49 was added for clarity by the translators of the NKJV; it does not appear in the Greek. However, when you read this text, you cannot escape the conclusion that, according to the words of Christ, men who do not receive the words will be judged those very words. If follows then that the words of Christ have intrinsic authority due to the fact that the Father is the Source of them. Two aspects of exist~dissolve's epistemology would not permit Christ to say this: (1) If the authority of Christ's words is a status granted by man, what right does Christ have to judge those who do not receive, and hence do not grant them such authority? (2) If language cannot convey literal truth, then (a) I shouldn't take them literally and (b) Christ again has no right to say that his words will judge me, because human language cannot communicate absolute, transcendental truth.

Reformed Cosmology is the Real Reformed Epistemology

Exist~Dissolve asserted this:

I would disagree with [Sola Scripture being the base presupposition of Reformed Theology]. The ultimate foundation of a Reformed worldview is its cosmology, one marked by materlialist conception of God’s sovereignty.

Deviant Monk tells us:

While I believe reformed cosmology is indeed the underlying theological presupposition, the ability of the individual to be the ultimate arbiter of truth would be the underlying epistemoloigcal presupposition.

In other words, they are accusing the Reformed of imposing a presupposed cosmology (concept of the universe's relationship to God) onto the Scripture. The authors of the Bible never intended their words to birth a "materialist conception of God" that we Calvinist--and most evangelicals at that--possess.

Both experience and a basic read of Genesis, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, the prophets, the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the general epistles, and especially Revelation tell me otherwise.

First, I rarely meet a Calvinist who became one without struggling for months to years with the issue. It took me about a year before I understood the significance of it--and Calvinism offended me greatly beforehand. Dr. R Stanton Norman, the professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological seminary began with a quest to obliterate the claims of Calvinism and eventually became convinced of its truth. I can name countless names of established Calvinists--all of whom struggled with accepting it. In other words, none of them started with a "cosmology" they pressed on to the Bible. In fact, they all will tell you that it was Scripture that uprooted their previous "cosmology" at its foundation.

Second, I would like for them to demonstrate how Calvinists impose its beliefs on to the Scripture.

Next, I will address "a materialist conception of God and His sovereignty."

Christian Existentialism - Part 2

Epistemology

Note: This part two of the series. Click here for part 1, and click here for part 2.1.

Epistemological concerns are by far the most difficult, but most important, issues to address in theological debate. When reviewing the correspondence that took place last week at the Gadfly, differences in epistemology between the Reformed and exist~dissolve/deviant monk were certainly the cause of debate as well as difficult communication. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the philosophical/theological term epistemology, let me briefly explain it. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with defining the concept of knowledge. Often in our lives we ask the question, "How do you know?" That is basically what epistemology concerns, but it is more difficult than it seems. For those of you who have never studied epistemology before (and I am by no means an expert), to answer the question How do I know? is not as easy as it may seem. When one studies how one knows, he becomes very aware of the fact that mankind takes the concept of knowledge--the fact that he knows anything--for granted.

The foundation of a worldview in epistemological terms is the concept of authority. Authority concerns sources of truth or knowledge. All worldviews appeal to some sort of authority, and each worldview has a fundamental authority that is taken without question. It could be the scientific method, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or personal experience. From whence do we obtain truth? In the Reformed perspective, our authority is the Canon of the Old (Torah, Prophets, Writings) and New (Gospels, Epistles, Revelation) Testaments. Exist~dissolve's epistemology was and is very difficult to ascertain, and I had to directly correspond with him to get some clarification. The closest "authority" I received from them was "both ecumenical councils and Scripture." However, exist~dissolve qualifies his understanding of authority in this manner:

In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent. As an example, Jerome Modell (a world-famous drowning researcher) is not an “authority” on drowning simply because he has studied it, or even because he has reached a certain level of proficiency that automatically registers authority. Rather, he is an expert and authority because others have imbued him (and his abilities) with such. The same is true of government. Government in not an authority simply because it “is,” or even because it exercises over-power. Ultimately, government is “authority” because it has been granted such.

In the same way, the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.

With that being said, my considerations about language and Scripture outlined previously would also apply to the councils and creeds; although they are authoritative to belief, their language does not encapsulate truth absolutely and transcendently. Rather, the authority which they exercise is equally an act of faith of the Church.

In other words, Exist considers the Scripture to be authoritative in a relative sense, and only because the church has thrusted that authority upon them. He and deviant monk do not believe that the Scriptures themselves claim to be authoritative absolutely. The Bible is not intrinsically authoritative due to its "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit, it is authoritative because traditionally, the church gave it its authority. Therefore, his understanding of Scripture as authoritative is limited to persuasion at best, but the canon of Scripture is not absolute and final. Moreover, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have other epistemological claims as well. First, they consider propositional truth problematic, because "it creates the allusion of correspondence between the divine and human (language)." Why? Because human language is incapable of the expression of transcendental divine truth. It is as if God's truth and man's truth are mutually exclusive, which is a theme in the writings of Emil Brunner, Soren Kierkegaard, and other existentialists. In fact, exist~dissolve limits human language even further here, here, and here.

What is interesting to me is this: It seems to me that for exist~dissolve, God is only transcendent (or God's existence is above and beyond the material world) and minimally immanent (existing in, and extending into, all parts of the created realm). It doesn't appear that exist believes that God could be both transcendent and immanent. If he does, that immanence is apparently limited to Person of Christ--the only true "self-revelation" of God. The Bible may be "revelation". but for them, it is not "self-revelation." My best estimate of their epistemology is this: Divine truth is communicated to a man only in an experiential, relational, intimate encounter with the Person of Christ--and it is not obtained through propositional, logical language.

Critique

Concerning Human Language -- The intent of epistemology is to demonstrate that knowledge is possible, and in the realm of theology, its goal is to demonstrate that God is knowable. Exist has admitted the difficulty of explaining how that is possible in the context of his presuppositions, and that difficulty is due to the limitations of human language. The late Gordon H Clark, a Reformed theologian and philosopher, has addressed the above issues quite directly. For example:

Theories of the origin, nature, and purpose of language have been recently developed that would prevent God from speaking truth to man on the ground that language cannot convey literal truth. Some writers say that all language is symbolic or metaphorical...Other writers make more restricted claims and say only that all religious language is metaphorical; from which it follows that if God uses language, he cannot tell the literal truth, but must speak in symbolism or mythology.

Those who defend the Bible as a true revelation must insist that it conveys literal truth. This does not mean that God cannot sometimes use symbolism and metaphor...God might have even used mythology or fable. But unless there are literal statements along with these figures of speech--or at the very least, unless figures of speech can be translated into literal truth--a book conveys no definite meaning.

Suppose the cross is selected as a Christian symbol, and suppose some flowery speaker should say, Let us live in the shadow of the cross. What can he mean? What does the cross symbolize? Does it symbolize the love of God? Or does it symbolize the wrath of God? Does is symbolize human suffering? Or does it symbolize the influence of the church? If there are no literal statement to give information as to what the cross symbolizes, these questions are unanswerable.

Let a person say that the cross symbolizes the love of God. However, if all language or religious language is symbolical, the statement that the cross symbolizes the love of God is itself a symbol. A symbol of what? When this last question is answered, we shall find that this answer is again a symbol. Then another symbol is needed, and another. And the whole process will be meaningless...

...In order to have meaning, an analogy, a metaphor, or a symbol must be supported by some literal truth. If Samson was as strong as an ox, then an ox must literally be strong. If Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah, then something must be literally true about lions and about Christ also. No matter with what literary embellishment the comparison be made, there must be a strictly true statement that has given rise to it. And a theory that says all language is symbolic is a theory that cannot be taken as literally true. Its own statements are metaphorical and meaningless...

...The possibility of rational communication between God and man is easily explained on theistic presuppositions. If God created man in his own rational image and endowed him with the power of speech, then a purpose of language--in fact, the chief purpose of language--would naturally be the revelation of truth to man and the prayers of man to God...language was devised by God; that is, God created man rational for the purpose of theological expression...

...If reason, that is, logic, which makes speech possible is a God-given faculty, it must be adequate to its divinely appointed task. And its task is the reception of divinely revealed information and that systematization of the propositions of dogmatic theology.

To sum up: Language is capable of conveying literal truths because the laws of logic are necessary. There is no substitute for them. Philosophers who deny them reduce their own denials to nonsense syllables...

(God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, 82-85)

Dr. Clark is right. If language is nothing more than an approximation of truth, then that claim is also an approximation. If language can only produce metaphors, then that too is a metaphor. The only logical outcome when pushed to extreme is theological skepticism--knowing God in any way is impossible. I presented this criticism to exist. He responded by redefining approximation and metaphor, while defending against the charge of skepticism. My objections to his response are as follows: (1) When he says that "human language is metaphorical", that proposition does not operate as metaphor. In fact, It seems to communicate his point quite directly. (2) He defines approximation as a "shadow of what could be, of that which we have scarcely brushed with our epistemological abilities before it explodes our capacities for comprehending. It is a deliberately self-deconstructing utilization of language." I would offer that definition as more than self-deconstructing, but as self-defeating. If an approximation is a mere shadow of what could be, then the term approximation is a misnomer and skepticism is the only logical outflow.

If I assumed his premises of language, I honestly would not be able to say that the knowledge of God is possible, and it would be inconsistent for me to accuse anyone of idolatry. The sin of idolatry is the worship of a false image or concept of God, and if the human mind in incapable of expressing the transcendental truths of God thereby producing a measure by which I can judge idolatry, then how am I supposed to know what idolatry is? Better yet, why even praise God? If my words cannot express divine truth, then I can seemingly speak only in blasphemies.

Exist~Dissolve takes the "Human Language" theory even further than those whom Dr. Clark is rebutting. Exist says that if propositional language can capture and define God, then it is consubstantial with God. This is not a presupposition with which I can agree. Human language cannot "define" God in the sense of limiting God and his actions, but it does not follow that language cannot express aspects of God's personality and attributes. When John tells us, "God is love," I see a direct explanation of God's character. It is even in propositional form. Several times in the correspondence, exist~dissolve describes God as infinite and transcendent, which is also a proposed truth claim expressing attributes of God. If exist is correct in his theory of language, he could not even say that God is infinite and transcendent and expect that to mean anything at all to me. I agree with exist when he says that human thought and expression cannot capture the fullness of God, but it does not follow that human language cannot convey truth about God. Is not the claim, "God is love" truthful? If I were to say that my wife is smart, I may not have defined who she is entirely, but I did convey a truth about her.

One last point on the capacities for human language; Gordon H. Clark also made a great point when he said the theories of language are useless in isolation, but need to be a part of a larger philosophical system. A theory of language should determine the origin, nature, and purpose of language and should be rooted in the presuppositions of the system at large. Exists theory is ultimately derived from philosophy system with naturalistic, evolutionary premises. However, this question must be asked. What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Exist has stated that volition is one aspect. Are not also the human capacities for thought, communication, reason, and language part of that image? Exist seems to think that we define God's image by "infinitized" human attributes, but, in fact, it is the other way around. We define the human attributes in limited forms of the divine attributes, and we do not share all of them with the divine. When we describe God, it does not follow that we are limiting God's existence within human language. I am not confining my wife's existence to my words by describing her as tall or beautiful.

Concerning Revelation -- Exist~dissolve seems to misunderstand the Reformed position on authority and revelation when we say, "The Bible is full revelation of God." We do not mean full in the sense of all that God is, we mean full in the sense of all that God has given us. The source of Scripture is God, and I would say God is capable of expressing aspects of himself to us in words. There are aspects of God's purpose and will that are not revealed to us in Scripture, for example, "no one knows the day or hour," says Christ concerning his return, hence, that has not been revealed to us. In the Reformed tradition, the baseline presupposition is this: all that God intends for us to know of Him has been revealed in the Bible.

"Christ is the only self-revelation of God." The question must be asked, how is Jesus the self-revelation? How does the revealing take place? It is implied through some of exist's correspondence that it is by "a bloody cross." Why is a bloody cross significant? How does self-revelation take place? Let me give an illustration stolen from Dr. Clark: If I were to sit in a room with another person, how does a relationship form? He may do nice things for me, but if he does not express himself verbally, I cannot get a glimpse into his higher thoughts, his desires, his likes, his dislikes, his passions, his dreams, his hope, or his opinions. In order for me to better know him relationally, he must voluntarily self-disclose information. If we sat in a room and looked at each other, I cannot say that I've made acquaintance with him.

With Christ, I come to know him personally and relationally through the words he has spoken and the words that I speak. I pray to him using words, and I learn of Him by his words. It is not merely Christ's actions that reveal God's nature, but also the teaching of his words. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass." (Matt 24:35)

Moreover, in the context of the Reformed premise of the "verbal plenary" inspiration of the Bible, the Bible itself is God's self-revelation--for it is God's Spirit who, through the human author, inspired each word stroked by his pen. Thus, ultimately we have God's words that reveal what He intends for us to know of his nature and purposes. Christians are not convinced of the Inspiration of Scripture by reason, they are convinced by a faith given to them of God--and that faith is the basis of all our belief. Since we have what we hold to be a God-given faith--a faith trusting that the ultimate source of the words of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who is God-very-God--the Bible is the "self-revelation" of God and it is intrinsically authoritative due to the Source. We do not hold that level of authority to creeds and councils, although we may agree with some of the councils' conclusions--and, in fact, are indebted to them for their wisdom.

Divergence from Biblical Authors -- Exist also does not follow the lead of Christ and the apostles. Even if we take Exist's presuppositions concerning biblical inspiration and authority, or even if the Bible is merely historically accurate, we have an idea of what Jesus taught concerning the written words of God. He quotes Deuteronomy in Matthew 4, "Is is written, 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" How many times does Jesus say, "it is written" or "it is [not] written?" Why rebut the Pharisees with Old Testament Scripture if exist~dissolve's understanding on authority were true? Why were the authors of the New Testament so concerned with Christ "fulfilling the Scriptures"? (Mark 12:10, 15:28; John 7:42, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 19:28; Acts 1:16, among others.) Why does Paul consult Old Testament so very often in his writings? Why use the word theopneustos (All Scripture is God breathed) in 2 Timothy 3:16? Why does Jesus say "The Scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35? It seems to me that Jesus thought that the Old Testament conveyed literal truth. Why is Peter concerned with people "twisting" Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:16) "as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" if there is not a knowable, literal truth communicated in Paul's letters and the Old Testament? In all honesty, how can Peter accuse them of "twisting" if there were not literal truth being communicated?

It seems that exist and deviant monk depart from New Testament's expressed high (as in absolute) view of Scriptural authority and inerrancy. If the words of the Scripture are "God breathed," why couldn't they communicate divine truth?

Conclusion on Epistemology

Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is. What I can tell you is this: the logical, reasoned outflow of their epistemology can only be skepticism. I am not accusing them of being skeptics. If your read their blogs, you will see that they believe in God and in Christ as the eternal logos of God. They are certain that particular forms of Christianity are idolatrous. What I am saying is that it is inconsistent for them to assert as they do about the incapability of human thought and language to express divine truth and then to claim a genuine, relational knowledge of God.

In the Reformed perspective, we take the Bible as Inspired on faith, and derive the rest from the claims of Scripture, albeit we do make mistakes. However, a misinterpretation of Scripture only brings discredit to the interpreter, not the source. We do have unquestioned, unreasoned presupposition (sola Scriptura), but the presuppositions do not collapse under their own weight. One may disagree with the premise, but it is not a matter of logical fallacy as it is a matter of distaste.

Next, a response to the charge of a "materialist conception of God."

New Link...

My friend, Chris Barnette, finally got his blog up an rolling, and it looks like it will be quite good. In fact, he just got linked at TeamPyro, with is quite a good thing.

Here is his site:

http://www.christopherbarnette.com/

It will also be linked on my sidebar...

Crazy Week

I am sorry that I have not begun to address the item below that I said that I would. I promise to start on the epistemological differences tomorrow.

However it has been an interesting week, actually few weeks...

1st. Laura and I resigned from Brownfields Baptist as the youth minister 'n wife. There are a few reasons for doing so.

Why did we resign the position? Our residence, and particularly my job, in relation to the church just became too cumbersome to be able to get to BBC during the week. I would spend over two and a half hours in a vehicle on weekdays that I went to BBC. That made my availability minimal, and my aggravation maximal. It is simply not fair to the youth(s) that I be the youth minister, I can't put in the time to produce the growth they need. Most importantly, I now know for certain that my ministry calling is not youth ministry. For that reason also, it would not be fair to the church and youth that I serve in that capacity.

Why are we leaving Brownfields? It is not for bigger and better positions. Laura and I don't know where we will go to church. It is specifically this: We want to be able and available to serve whatever church to which we belong. That availability part is the problem with BBC. We lose an entire Wednesday night for a 30 minute prayer meeting, for which we are seemingly always late due to my job and Baton Rouge traffic. There are some personal reasons, too. Laura and I have no young married friends with which we fellowship. Because of our location, fellowship with the congregation seems impossible, and we felt out of the loop with what was going on there.

2nd. A few weeks ago, a man named Barry Thibodeaux began to attend Brownfields on Sundays, and some Wednesdays. In fact, the first Sunday he attended was when I preached out of Ephesians 2. This man had a very interesting story. He worked sound for several well-known celebrities over the last couple of decades, spiraled down a life of drugs, alcohol and debauchery...and then God brought a huge event in his life that changed him. I spoke with him about the gospel, and he knew it in his mind, and I am very convinced that he belonged to Christ because of the recent changes in his life, and the fact that he said that he has no doubt where he would go. He forsaked it all. Money (he was well paid by the celebrity musicians), women, drugs...all to work a $10 an hour construction job...all because he wanted a change in his life and to be close to Christ. I saw his and spoke with him about his work last Sunday.

Yesterday, on my way home, I heard about a body that was found on the Comite river, and with it was a black SUV. Payed no mind to the broadcast. Then my wife came home from prayer meeting to tell me that it was Barry that was found... Talk about wake you up. I don't know the details as to what happened. I will do my best to find out.

3rd. On the way to work this morning, my car broke down due to overheating. I had to stop in Gonzales, a little town south of Baton Rouge, at a gas station. The motor was steaming! My boss sent two of my coworkers to help me, Lance and TJ. TJ has worked on cars and saved me who-knows-how-many hundreds of dollars by find the problem and fixing it for me. It was a broken hose--all the coolant had leaked from that hose. It was a $10 part--Nice! So, I will be looking for a nice way to get him back for such kindness--no good deed goes unpunished.

I'll get on the "important" (seemingly unimportant now after Barry) tomorrow.

"Genetic" Outlaw

I remember when I was in grade school and I first learned about the ancient Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. I remember being appalled at one aspect of Spartan culture: the abandonment of babies with physical or obvious mental defects. They would just leave them to die outside of the city. In fact, the whole class was upset at the Spartan cultural norm.

Times have changes in the 20 years since my elementary school days, and I am sad to say that Western Society has come to the same point. Check out this article I found through Dr. Mohler's site. Don't just read the article, read the comments, too. The writer of the article, Elizabeth R. Schiltz, did something unusual for a pregnant woman to do in the Western world: she did not abort a fetus that had a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. She is considered a "genetic outlaw." The article was very interesting, but the comments were even more interesting, and saddening.

Many of the readers of the article disagreed with Schiltz's decision, calling her arrogant. They accused her of bringing of "suffering" child in the world for her own needs. One commenter said: "We're not talking about euthanasia, we're talking about preselection," as if the act of abortion doesn't involve the destruction of life, since the fetus is inside of the woman. There are even more overtones of arrogance in some of the comments: Society has a right to decide who gets to be born.

My question is this: Who gets to decide the health/mental/medical criterion for birth? Lawmakers? Doctors? Judges? An amendment to the Constitution voted in by the people? From whence do we determine the criterion? What do we use as an authority to decide who is a person and who is not worthy of life? Advocates for mercy killing/abortion may disguise this immorality in clothes of good intentions. "We won't bring someone in the world who will only suffer in life." However, this deceptive language only hides the true intentions behind this culture of death: In a society driven by convenience, nobody-not even the government-wants the emotional and financial burden and inconvenience of children with special needs. We may not leave the children outside of our cities to be consumed by wild animals or the elements, we just kill them in the womb before it comes to that.

Christian Existentialism

This is the first part of an I-don't-know-how-many part series.

Note: Part 2 is here.

Last week, Alan Kurschner of the Calvinist Gadfly posted this article titled "Removing the Doctrine of Election is Cause for Boasting in Ourselves." It was a brief excerpt from a linked article by John Hendryx from www.reformationtheology.com. The second post was from a person with the screen name "exist~dissolve." I linked to his blog site in a post below, and it is on my list of links. This is important to note: when someone disagrees with Calvinism on the Gadfly, it is not mere discussion and dialogue, it is war! The Reformed crew jumped on exist and his ally of sorts, deviant monk, like flies on feces...But exist and deviant monk held their own and responded to pretty much every objection thrown at them by the Reformed folk. I even put my two cents in at times, but exist and deviant monk quickly responded to me too.

The Reformed constantly asked exist and deviant to openly state their position, and they did, albeit in a philosophical vernacular that is above the average layperson's head. In fact, their—particlarly exist's—loquacious (a big, ironic word for wordy) language is intimidating for those unfamiliar with the terms, which I think is intentional for three purposes: (1) to boost the perception of their intelligence resulting in the (2) intimidation of their audience and (3) to obscure their position behind a seemingly impenetrable wall of words. The previous statement is not meant as a jab to exist's and deviant's intelligence. Both have brilliant minds, but everyone likes to look smarter than they are, and superfluous ;-) wordiness does the trick.

From the post and from some personal correspondence with exist, I was finally able to understand their objections to Calvinism and the Reformed worldview, which I will summarize below:

Epistemology - They object to the Reformed presupposition of Sola Scriptura. First, they dismiss the notion of inerrancy and find it completely unnecessary. Second, they redefine inspiration to something drastically different than the Reformed understanding of the Spirit's Inspiration of Scripture. Third, a redefinition of the concept of authority. They do not hold the Bible to be revelation, and a recurring theme in their writings and correspondence is that the only true revelation of God in the Person and Work of Christ. Another recurring theme: the limitations of human language—particularly propositional language—to describe and communicate literal truth concerning the divine nature. In fact, exist denies that "Sola Scriptura" is a Reformed presupposition, much less the base presupposition of Calvinism. He thinks that our "cosmology" is our foremost presupposition.

"Materialist Conception of God's Relationship to Creation" - In exist's opinion, Reformed theology leads to a defining of God's nature and actions on the basis of the creation itself. In other words, we in the Reformed tradition make the mistake of defining God and his nature by things other than God. This includes everything "other" than God: phenomenology (observing physical phenomenon to define God) and particularly propositional language (the infinite divine nature cannot be expressed in human terms). If that which is other than God has the capacity to define and truly describe God's eternal nature, then that which is other than God is, in fact, God. Therefore, since the Reformed folk define God's nature using human propositional language, which is something other than God, then that human language and thought is itself consubstantial with God—thus exist accuses Reformed theology of a pantheism (the belief that God is all) of sorts.

God's Relationship to Evil - Though exist may encapsulate this objection in heavy words, he shares this objection with many non-Reformed. Logically, the Reformed presentation makes God responsible for evil. Often times, Reformed theologians make a distinction between the words responsible and culpable. The former refers to the proposition that God is the ultimate cause for all that happens, including that which is evil; the latter refers to the proposition that responsibility does not necessitate guilt on the part of God. It is still man by his own will who commits the acts of evil, not God, although God ordained for it to happen. Exist does not buy that distinction, and he does "not see...the ability inherent to [the Reformed] philosophical methodology to accurately maintain fidelity both [God's] decrees (which are eternal, efficacious, and exhaustive) with the denial of God's culpability for the origin of sin..." This is not a
new charge per se, but it is the most sophisticated version of this charge I've seen in a while.

Unconditional Election - This objection is relative to the above objection. Here are exist's words from his first post at the Gadfly.

It is curious that you believe the claim that a denial of the concept of “unconditional election” is somehow tantamount to an equal affirmation that one "adds” something to their salvation. I see no reason that would make this statement either self-evident or logically necessary. The positing of the role of the human will in salvation is not indicative of a theology that suggests that humans must “add” something to salvation.

Moreover, I would suggest that the very doctrine of “unconditional election,” which is built upon the necessary corolary doctrines of absolute predestinationism, is itself a denial of salvation. After all, if God has eternally determined those whom God will save, from what are we being saved? If we are honest in light of predestinationism, the only answer is that we are being saved from the God that has created the necessary conditions by which we required salvation in the first place. If God wouldn’t have eternally determined to cause our fall, there would be no need to save us. The fact that we must be saved, in light of predestinationism, reveals that 1.) God is either inept from keeping those whom God has eternally “elected” for salvation from sinning and even falling under God’s condemnation or 2.) God is truly neurotic in choosing to predestine those whom God has chosen to save to first become that which God despises, merely so that God can then save them… Of course, as their fall and sinfulness is predestined by God from all of eternity, we cannot literally say that God despises sinfulness and rebellion, for who despises that which one freely chooses?

This comment is what caused the storm of objections from the Calvinist militants. Exist's mistake? Not expressing his presuppositions and views. No one had any idea how to answer him in a way that addresses his ultimate objections, particularly because exist did not state them.

There were several other objections, but that is all that I will have time for this week. Over the next few days / weeks, I will attempt to answer the objections set forth above by exist and deviant monk.

This must be said: From reading his blog, corresponding with him in email, and even his name, "exist~dissolve", it is apparent that he is primarily an existentialist with influences of the likes of Soren Kierkegaard and perhaps Emil Brunner (whose writings posses similar views concerning human language).

A New Link

I am going to link a person I've seen show up at two other websites: Calvinist Gadfly and Pyromaniacs. His Internet presence is known as exist-dissolve. I've placed a link to the left.

Exist is not your rank-n-file evangelical or Protestant. I haven't quite figured out how to classify him. He completely and openly denies the Reformed faith, but his critiques bear much more force than the typical anti-Calvinist. If you want to question what you believe, check out his blog. Don't be intimidated by his command of language, just read and think.

I'll post some responses when I get some time...a lot of time. To respond to him actually requires thought, otherwise he will note your inconsistencies.

Reality Television Got It Wrong

My wife, Laura, and I have moved into our new condo. It's really nice, and we love it. Scarlet, our dog, loves her little yard, too.

Today, we had to go to the DMV to update the addresses on our vehicle registrations and drivers' licenses. It was the "express" DMV office--but its DSL connections to the main office were down, so it wasn't too "express" at first. While standing in line, Laura and I were observing the other people in the line...It was better than reality television. Quite entertaining.

Seriously, the conversations we heard between the people in the line as well as the cell phone conversations were crazy. Scripted "reality" television wastes money on the "creativity departments" they employ. Just stick a hidden camera in the DMV when the computers are down--that would be good reality television.