Blue Like Jazz, Chapters 9 and 10

Chapter 9 is titled "Change." In this chapter, Miller discusses his transformation from a fundamentalist variety of Christianity to one that is more "personal" and "authentic"--the time in which he made his true commitment to Jesus Christ. Miller paints a nice picture with his words concerning his experience in the Grand Canyon, under the vast amounts of stars, making his peace with God.

However, the interesting part for me came at the end of the chapter.

As I lay there, it occurred to me that God is up there [beyond the stars in the sky] somewhere...this time I felt it, I realized it, the way a person realizes that they are hungry or thirsty. The knowledge of God seeped out of my brain and into my heart. I imagined Him looking down to this earth, half angry because his beloved mankind had cheated on Him, had committed adultery, and yet hopelessly in love with her, drunk with love for her...

...I am wanted by God. He is wanting to preserve me...

To describe God as "drunk with love" more than bothers me. To me, this sentiment makes God seem emotionally out of control. God's actions are not driven by emotion. If this is Miller's "knowledge of God", then He doesn't know the God of the Bible very well. God is not "in love" with creation. Matter a fact, God is more than "half-angry"; He is wrathful. To say that God is "in love" transforms God's love from something that is expressed in selfless action to that which is expressed in mere romantic feelings. Such romanticism may make the reader have warm fuzzies, but it does not express God's hostility, wrath, and judgment towards sin. A depraved sinner has little problem believing in a God who overlooks sin, but only those sinners convicted by God's grace accept a God whose holy (a word yet to be discussed by Miller) love still demands a propitiation for sin...

Miller opens chapter 10 like this:

My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I really don't do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care.

This is one of the most arrogant and judgmental statements in the entirety of the book (besides the consistent stabs at Republicans). The now all-wise Miller dismisses--in a mere half-paragraph--the need of a field of study that generations of brilliant Christians have devoted their entire lives to: apologetics. Augustine, Anselm, Pascal, Luther, Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Van Til, Clark, Ravi Zacharias (a name mentioned favorably by Miller later in the book), and a host of others all have wasted their mental capacities in demonstrating that they are smarter than the atheists. Of course they had no genuine devotion of Christ--as least not a strong as Miller's.

Honestly, I wanted to stop the book review at this point. This run-on sentence is completely irresponsible and hypocritical--the smugness of the tone implied that he was smarter than those whom he was critiquing.

...I realized that believing in God is much like falling in love as it is like making a decision. Love is both something that happens to you and something you decide upon.

This is the definition of synergism without using theological terms. There are many astute theologians (Norman Geisler, for example) that are synergists; they believe that conversion is the result of a cooperation of the human will with the divine. If the human will does not cooperate, there is no conversion. I am a monergist; I hold that the human will cannot cooperate with the divine influence, unless the divine manifests a change within the obstinate heart of the human being. Ultimately, conversion is the result of God's providential influence over the heart of the sinner--not the sinner's cooperation.

According to Miller, belief is something that "happens to you" [the divine will] and something "you decide upon" [the human will]. To justify this theology, Miller cites no Scripture, no astute theologian; only anecdotal evidence based solely in his experience as a Christian.

Can you imagine if Christians actually believed that God was trying to rescue them from the pit of their own self-addiction? Can you imagine? Can you imagine what Americans would do if they understood over half of the world was living in poverty? Do you think it would change they way they live, the products they purchase, and the politicians they elect? [Page 106-107]

God is not trying to rescue us from "the pit our own self-addiction." God does not try to do anything--He does all He intends to do (Isaiah 46:10). He does not need us to cooperate in order to rescue us, and when He does rescue us, He saves us from the pits of a fiery and eternal hell!

Don, I forgive you for the shameless liberal plug in the second half of this excerpt--even though it is a non-sequitur.

The problem with Christian belief--I mean real Christian belief, the belief that there is a God and a devil and a heaven and a hell--is that it is not a fashionable thing to believe. [Page 107]

Miller then goes on to criticize the attempts of the church to make Christian belief to seem cool--which to me completely undermines a purpose of this book. The whole book is an attempt to make Christianity seem more appealing to his audience--to make it seem exciting, cool, and something that agrees with the political left. Yet again, Miller comes off as a hypocritical to me, and if I were an unbeliever, I would not only think this repackaged Christianity as uncool, but dishonest as well. Kudos on finally mentioning hell, though. It's about time.

All great Christian leaders are simple thinkers. Andrew [an activist friend of his who is known for protesting conservative politics] doesn't cloak his altruism in a trickle-down economic theory that allows him to spend fifty dollars on a round of golf to feed the economy and provide jobs for the poor. He actually believes that when Jesus says to feed the poor, He means that you should do this directly.

More conservative caricatures. Most evangelical Christians who are politically conservative, that loathsome Religious Right, are so because of moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and gay-marriage--not for economical issues. Most of them don't even know what trickle-down economic theory is. Some do. However, contrary to Miller's stereotype, when compared to any demographic in the nation, this group gives more in direct charitable contributions to churches and organizations that give to the poor--both in numbers and percentages of annual income. They are extremely generous on the whole--save the prosperity theologians. Honestly, these subtle condemnations of Republican Christians are too numerous--and I needed to get this off my chest. I promise to stick to theology from now on.

From here Miller makes some great points: Miller criticizes postmodernity (although he seems a bit post-modern in his theology). It's "another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing." Agreed. On the last page of Chapter 10, Miller tells us, "Jesus is the most important figure in history, and the gospel is the most powerful force in the universe." Again, agreed. However, what is the gospel? What gives the gospel it's power? These questions Miller has not clearly answered.

Good Article on Emergent Movement

Dr. John MacArthur has begun a series called "Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture". In this article, Dr. MacArthur discusses McLaren's hesitancy to make any theological assertion with any certainty--which implies that he does not believe the Scripture to be clear in revealing God's nature and purposes.

For those of you who have heard of the emergent movement and have questions about it, this is a good starting point.

To deny the clarity of Scripture (by criticizing those who are certain in their beliefs about God), is to undo one of the principal arguments of the Protestant Reformation. If it were not for the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, we would not have translations of the Bible in our own language to read for ourselves. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church held that biblical interpretation could only be done by the clergy, it did not belong in the hands of the laity. They never translated the Scriptures out of Latin to the languages of their consituency--and never let them read it for themselves.

Luther and many, many other Reformers held that the Scriptures, by the inward dwelling of the Holy Spirit, are clear to all believers, and it was the believer's responsibility--if he could read--to search the Scriptures for themselves. Hence their drive the translate the Scriptures into the language of the people...all of it driven by a dogmatic conviction of the perspecuity of God's Word.

Science and Religion

Cody Willhite, a good friend of both me and my wife, asked me to facilitate discussions for the SCMA at LSU (A pre-medical students' Christian organization). The topic was Medical Ethics ( a nice and narrow subject matter, of which I am the most knowledgeable person in Baton Rouge ;-) ). I've had a wonderful time interacting with brilliant college students on some heavy issues. In our first couple of meetings, we discussed the ability of the scientific method to arrive at any truth, much less metaphysical or moral truth.

Today, Albert Mohler posted some commentary on a New York Times article (reader comments to article) he read that covered a recent conference at a California University known as, "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival." These rabid scientists have more than a little hostility toward us minions that have faith--which of course is something they apparently do not have. Below are some of the brilliant moments of this intellectual feast:

"The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief." [Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics]

I'd like to know how Weinberg can call religious belief a nightmare. That term is a pejorative, a term intended to belittle his opponent and it's hardly scientific in its usage. It's also loaded with moral value, for nightmares are bad things that scare us--and they aren't real. I'd like to know what empirical evidence Weinberg has that justifies using nightmare as a metaphor.

"Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization." [Weinberg]

Anything? This isn't science--it's ethics. In fact, it is a utilitarian ethic (the ends justify the means, provided that it is for the greater good). The problem is: what is good? Does science have the means to determine the moral or ethical value or worth of any claim or assertion? What is assumed here is that religion is bad and science is good--but the scientific method cannot test this assumption, so it's something Weinberg accepts without "reason" to accept--he "believes" this, but he cannot "know" this by means of the scientific method.

"We should let the success of the religious formula guide us. Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome -- and even comforting -- than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know." [Carolyn Porco, Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO]

How can Porco know that the universe is "rich" or "beautiful" or that the story of the universe is "glorious" or "awesome"? These are subjective, aesthetic claims, not "objective", scientific ones. The terms rich, beautiful, glorious, and awesome are placing value and worth on the universe, but she has no means of deriving this value other than her subjective feelings. How does one scientifically determine that the universe is beautiful? One ought to be able to do this in order to mandate telling our children of her beauty in a secular worldview.

"I am utterly fed up with the respect that we -- all of us, including the secular among us -- are brainwashed into bestowing on religion . . . . Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence." [Richard Dawkins, Oxford University]

Question, Dr. Dawkins. What knowledge, other than her methods, has science actually brought us? Each and every conclusion about any scientific subject is tentative at best--likely to be replaced within a few years with better explanation that fits the later evidence we may obtain. Science claims to be on a quest for truth, but what truths have science brought us? What we know now by means of the scientific method is an estimate at best, and when this current "knowledge" is replaced by a better one, is it still truth or knowledge? Knowledge by means of "real evidence" will change when the evidence becomes better. I offer that that the conclusions of science are not a knowledge of truth.

Christian Existentialism - Part 3

Click for part 2.1, part 2, part 1.

Materialist Conception of God

Exist~dissolve and Deviant Monk both have have charged Reformed theology of pantheism, the belief that there is no distinction between God and the creation--God is all and all is God. Exist tells us:

If one begins from the foundation of the "eternal decrees of God," I see no way in which one can avoid a thoroughly materialist conception of God’s relationship to creation. Related to this, I object to the way in which the Reformed crowd explicates the "sovereignty" of God. As the language which the Reformed crowd utilizes betrays, the Reformed conception of God’s sovereignty is utterly materialist, for it proceeds from the basis of phenomenological investigation. In other words, my experience (and actually the necessary conclusions of Reformed confessionalism) of Reformed sovereignty-speak is that God’s sovereignty is ultimately expressed through expression in the temporal/causal sphere. However, by doing this, Reformed theology has ultimately (although perhaps not consciously) reduced God’s sovereignty to that which exists—but if this happens, there is no way in which to separate that which is created from the being of God, for the very description of the nature of God is based upon creation. While I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created (for our language is ultimately linked to our createdness), I also do not believe that this admission requires the gross reduction of God’s sovereignty to causality and over-power which I understand Reformed theology to advocate.

It is this fundamental presupposition which leads to the rest of the errors which I see within Reformed theology, whether one is speaking of Christology, atonement, soteriology, etc. They can all be traced back to this fundamental assumption about the nature of God’s relationship to creation, a relationship which I cannot but see as a philosophical pantheism.

The charge of pantheism is not something that we should take lightly. However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):

12 "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. 15 The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. 21 He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. 22 Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude." Deuteronomy 10:12-22

1 Then Job answered and said: 2 "Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God? 3 If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand. 4 God is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened himself against Him and prospered? 5 He removes the mountains, and they do not know When He overturns them in His anger; 6 He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; 7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; 8 He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; 9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; 10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number. 11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?' 13 God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him." Job 9:1-13

1 Then Job answered and said: ... 13 "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. 14 For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such things are with Him. 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. 16 For God made my heart weak, And the Almighty terrifies me; 17 Because I was not cut off from the presence of darkness, And He did not hide deep darkness from my face." Job 23:1,13-17

1 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." Job 42:1-2

4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; F26 He lays up the deep in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:4-11

1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth. 2 Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" 3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. Psalm 115:1-4

5 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 8 He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. 9 He sent signs and wonders into the midst of you, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. 10 He defeated many nations And slew mighty kings-- 11 Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan, And all the kingdoms of Canaan-- 12 And gave their land as a heritage, A heritage to Israel His people. 13 Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your fame, O Lord, throughout all generations. 14 For the Lord will judge His people, And He will have compassion on His servants. Psalm 135:5-14

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. 12 I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Ecclesiastes 3:11-15

24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 14:24-27

5 "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 "Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory." (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 46:1-11

24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.' 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." Acts 4:24-30

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "... 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...for in Him we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:22,24-26

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power [gk: exousia] over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21

To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 25

Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11

Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist? Even if it does not materially exist, and is a mere thought of God, it still exists in a non-material way and is a creation of sort subject to God's authority. Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists? Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.

The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority. In personal correspondence, exist stated that he would rather not use the term because it had been hijacked by the Reformed crowd. However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation? In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?

They may respond to my answer in this manner: The way that the Reformed explain God's will practically restricts God to doing what He wills--thereby defining His will and actions by what comes to pass in time and space. How then do you differentiate that which is necessarily God and that which is creation?

Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.

The relationship between God and his creation is as a the relationship between the playwright and his play--even to a greater extent. If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation. The sovereignty of God is not something merely "expressed." It has far greater implications than that. God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being. We experience it in the spatial/temporal sphere, but it is not limited to that realm. All that and who exist belong to God and are subject to his authority--this is Paul's inescapable point in Romans 9.

How are we to tell that which created from that which is God? Any material object, created being (other the man Jesus), event in time is not God, although his "pen" has brought them pass. God himself is completely unobservable and invisible, hence the necessity of revelation both through his word and by his Son. God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.

However, in humility, we must admit the difficulties of explicating the actions of an eternal God within a creation in bondage to time. We limited in our expressions to temporal and spatial terms--and there are many aspects of God that we can neither know nor express because they are beyond comprehension, nor have they been revealed to us. On the other hand, what God has revealed to us by his words and his Word, we can claim as truth and trust the message of them to be true.

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."

"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).