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).