Determinism in Reformed Theology, Calvinism

Though Reformed theologians have some variety of nuanced positions, the general spirit and mode of thinking is determinedly asymmetrical and characterized by the following.

God controls everything, and everything is predestined. Nevertheless, the following must be admitted, despite the mystery of apparent inconsistency to our fallen minds.

If you are damned, it's entirely your own fault, and not God's fault at all (though God controls everything). This is hard to understand, because sin is darkness and confusion.

If you are saved, it's entirely God's doing, and not to your credit at all. This is easy to understand, because goodness makes sense, like light and clarity.

We all deserve to be damned as rebels against God - that's God's justice.

Some of us are saved by God - that's God's mercy.

Therefore God is just and blameless and merciful in causing some to be saved while causing, or as they say "letting", others be damned. Since *everyone* deserves to be damned, and no one *deserves* by their own actions to be saved, we must marvel at God's generosity in saving anyone at all instead of causing (or "letting") the whole lot of us to be damned. This dizzying logic causes seizure in tent revival meetings under the trees.

In some ways, these are clever riddles that can be solved by sophisticated mystic reading. First of all, cast off literalist networks of interpretation regarding what it means to be damned or saved, and solve it as a clever riddle, finding the right alternative network of interpretation.

Is some ways, these are perverse devilish inconsistencies that serve to prop up the freewill assumption even while denying that assumption. This suggests that no-free-will may be a heresy in the orthodox view.

In some ways, these are consistent inconsistencies, like the following I invented:

Sinners have free will. Saints don't have free will.

Demons have free will. Angels don't.

The Reformed theologians waffle to no end about whether we have free will, but the point they are afraid to address is whether the idea of free will is even logically possible at all, for any creature. Augustine seems to say that we do have free will, but it's broken and corrupt, preventing us from choosing and accepting Christ's offer of free salvation. Each theological has a slight variation, but few of them deny the possibility of free will in principle.

Those few who flat-out deny freewill as a coherent possibility still insist on blending the no-free-will principle with egoic moralism, producing a monstrous confused system.

I actually hold that:

The 'sinner' is the mind who assumes that freewill is a coherent notion and assumes that that mind has free will.

The 'saint' is the mind which assumes that freewill is an incoherent notion, and assumes that that mind doesn't have free will.

To be 'saved' is to deeply disown and reject the freewill assumption, though doing so causes ego-death seizure and a sacrificial willing of the loss of control. To will the sacrificial, transgressive rejection of egoic self-control is to will as Christ did, "Not my will but your will be done." This amounts to an act of willing that is considered to be one's own act that is not considered as originating from oneself, but is injected into the mind by the ground of being. It's hard but not impossible to consistently discuss this sacrificial, transcendent turning of the will against itself -- the important point is what the mind considers to be the *source* of the mind's will.

Reformed theology is centered on the topic of free will. It's surprising that there's not more dialog between Reformed theologians and philosophers of free will vs. determinism -- two very different modes of approaching the issues.

Book: Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast

This is an update at Amazon of a book I read and reviewed years ago. I do not recommend this book unless you have some reason to study the Fundamentalist Prophecy worldview.

Reviews or updates to reviews take 5 to 7 business days to appear (4 to 12 actual days).

I must remember to mention in Amazon reviews to see my Amazon area for more information.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/A1YFCQT60M4XAJ

Fundamentalist prophecy perspective on Roman Catholic Church

I have read almost all of Dave Hunt's nonfiction books, and this is one of his most interesting. This is a fascinating expose of the Catholic Church, especially if you have never read about the differences between Catholocism and Protestantism.

I wish Dave would write more about Reformed theology; having read nearly all of his nonfiction books, I remained completely unaware that free will was a contentious issue that was used to create and break away the Protestant tradition from Catholocism. To provide that background, a starting place is Sproul's Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will.

A book even more focused on issues such as free will in the Protestant/Catholic divide is The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & Protestants -- Do the Differences Still Matter?, by James R. White. I read Hunt's book and these two books cover to cover. Don't make the mistake I did and limit yourself to reading books about Christianity by one author, such as Hunt.

An especially good remedy to break away from the limitation of having just one perspective on Christianity is to read a couple of general histories of Christianity (search on "history of Christianity"). This will provide perspectives and background on the Reformation that you won't get from reading Hunt's book, which only provides a Fundamentalist Prophecy perspective.

Hunt is the voice of scholarly American fundamentalist Protestantism. He is a careful and consistent fundamentalist; he is not vague. He accepts supernaturalism as a starting point, and builds rationally and clearly on that basis, such as accepting the existence of spirit creatures.

This is a great introduction to Catholic history and doctrine and shows what a tremendous step forward Luther brought, though Protestantism still retains a lot of the Catholic orthodox supernaturalist Literalist reading of the Bible."

Book: Dave Hunt: What Love Is This? - anti-Calvinism

This is my review posted today.

What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God

by Dave Hunt (May 2002)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1929125305

As wrong as Calvinism, but essential, timely, & much needed

I was recently unhappy with Dave Hunt because reading his books left me utterly unaware of Reformed theology. I was astounded to find that his latest book is on that very topic. He has provided *exactly* what I was looking for after studying Reformed theology: a critical survey of all the most shocking things about Reformed theology.

While reading about Reformed theology, I was amazed that some of these theologians assert some of the more radical aspects some mystics believe, that God is the author of sin, that there is no free will.

We don't have to choose between accepting Hunt's view and that of the Calvinists: they are *both* wrong and the mystics provide a rational third alternative. Unlike most Arminians and Reformed theologians, as a mystic determinist who believes there is a single preset and preexisting future, I consider man to be only virtually responsible and not genuinely responsible or guilty, and I consider salvation to be about mystic experience and enlightenment rather than something after bodily death.

Dave Hunt has provided exactly the kind of critique I was looking for -- I never imagined such a book would come from Hunt, whose previous books failed to teach me any theology. What I wondered about most of all while reading Calvinists was their admission that it's illogical to hold men responsible while denying free will and saying that God is the ultimate controller of everything. I wanted to hear what other Christians had to say about the most radical principles of Reformed theology.

Like Luther congratulating Erasmus for getting down to the real issue, of the will, so do I congratulate Hunt for focusing on the most shocking aspects of Calvinism.

Hunt's book serves as a demonstration that the accustomed definitions of Calvinism and Arminianism may be oversimplied and artificially uniform. I especially appreciate his coverage of disputes and inconsistencies within Calvinism.

People should read books from different traditions, because each tradition tends to slanderously misrepresent the others and set up straw men. And each tradition has internal variety and conflicting sub-schools. It's trickier than Protestants let on, to characterize the Catholic stance of the will; some Catholic dogmas and approved books match Calvinism, as Hunt points out -- while other parts of Catholic tradition take an Arminian approach.

There are also several different notions and traditions, or sub-schools, of Arminianism. To make things even more complex, the whole subject of the nature of the will's freedom is inherently very subtle and confusing, requiring expert-level philosophy skills to study the will's freedom as a philosophy area apart from theology.

As a mystic determinist who rejects free will as an impossibility and monstrously confused thinking, I would still affirm that the will is deeply involved in salvation and revelation. But the arguments all revolve around how to conceive the will's involvement. In sacrificial customs, the victim always is supposed to be a willing sacrifice.

Given this highly complex subject of the nature of the will's involvement in salvation (not to mention the debates needed about the nature of salvation itself), we must be extremely cautious about using terms such as "Calvinism", "Reformed", "Catholic", and "Arminian"; these are all problematic, overlapping, and often distorted categories, with internal varieties.

Even though I philosophically reject free will as a confused, impossible notion, I agree with Hunt that the Bible doesn't paint a simple 5-point Calvinistic position, but rather, a variety of perspectives. In practice, even Augustine, Luther, and Calvin scramble or smuggle some freewillist thinking into their supposed no-free-will systems.

Hunt's investigation has helped to shatter the complacent oversimplistic story most Calvinists tell about Augustine, Catholic theology, and Arminianism. We need more nuanced, various, and accurate understandings of the different systems of thinking about the role of the will in salvation. Hunt raises the right issues and points out the most problematic or shocking aspects of Calvinism.

Hunt argues that Calvin's politics are highly relevant to evaluating his theology, because historically, "theology" was often mostly a tool designed to prop up power politics. It's a problem for us mystic determinists that the ruling powers so often try to use determinism to prop up their oppressive regimes. We should be suspicious of Calvin's theology because it may have been crafted more to prop up the rulers than to make sense or lead to some kind of religious salvation.

Against Hunt, I agree with Calvin about points such as divine sovereignty and no-free-will, but the theology of Calvin, Luther, and Augustine includes much noxious distortion due to the power-politics role that it was largely designed to serve. Calvinists are mistaken in assuming that they have a monopoly on the no-free-will position; mystics contend to own that same principle of no-free-will but integrate it with an esoteric rather than literalist conception of salvation.

Although Hunt shows Calvinism to be problematic, don't assume that the only alternative is Arminianism; mysticism is a third alternative that holds predestination but considers damnation to be merely a metaphor for delusion -- the delusion of free will, in particular. Against Hunt, dualist mystics agree with Calvin and Augustine that many *are* predestined to eternal torment in the flames of hell, but mystics consider such torment as a metaphor for delusion.

I agree both with some of Hunt's points (the will is *somehow* involved in salvation) and some of Calvin's points, insofar as they overlap with mystic determinism and mystic-state salvation as a revealed mystery generally available to people in this life. I am surprised and grateful to Hunt for regaining relevance by addressing the most worthwhile subject of the controversial aspects of Reformed theology.

>>The teachings of Jacobus Arminius derive from Pelagianism and give rise to the Christian humanism of modern evangelicals; in which it is presumed that man is an agent of free will and determines his own salvation. In other words man through will chooses salvation or damnation; the concept of election and grace do not enter the picture - this is a teaching of choic or fleshly basis and is not Christ-centered.

>>Calvinism has ties with Old Covenant Law, which is not compatable with the New Covenant of Paul and his Gospel of Christ. As such, Calvin fails to recognize pneumatic election as independent of the Law and that Christ is wholly and utterly independent of the Abrahamic covenant - it is void in Christ. The Calvinist tries to justify through works - Calvinism is Law-centered not Christ-centered.

Calvinism *in practice* is Law-centered, Works-salvation, showing lack of logical integrity with its no-free-will position. See below for some explanation *why* Calvinism ended up, ironically, founded on works-salvation. Dave Hunt concurs that perhaps the main psychological problem in Calvinism was "But how does one have any confidence of being saved?" What drove witch-hunts (besides confiscatory greed)? Self-doubt about one's election to salvation in Calvinism caused the devil to loom large in Protestant consciousness.

Calvinism is no-free-will thinking mixed monstrously with freewillist thinking, and the result is insane projection of one's animalistic inconsistency onto others as witches.

Ken Wilber doesn't really seem to have a definite explanation for this concept of Puritans following the Devil, in the book Up From Eden. Wilber shows a woodcut illustration with Puritans following the Devil, in terms of the metaphysical slavehood of the will; Puritans may have preached no-free-will but their thinking was nevertheless, incongruously, based in freewillist thinking: as Wilber would say, their attempt at transcending their current level of thinking failed, and they fell into mental degradation, low superstitious magical thinking, a kind of psychosis.

Hunt's new book against Calvinism confirms everything I suspected about Calvinism, its ramifications, and the reactions of typical evangelical Christians who aren't familiar with systematic Reformed theology.

My evangelical friends, God bless their mortal souls, were stunned by my report on the Calvinist no-free-will position (regeneration of your will by God -> faith given you by God -> grace given you by God -> salvation given you by God) and stated their own understanding of the order of salvation to be entirely different (one's free will -> faith in Jesus by oneself -> saved by God).

Timothy Freke's Encyclopedia of Spirituality, is the best New Age-styled book. It has enlightened sections on no-free-will/no-separate self and on entheogens.

James' Pragmatism against Calvinist block universe

William James formed his philosophy of pragmatism specifically against his father's Calvinism, which James characterized as an "iron block universe". This is the only time I've seen the Calvinist worldview specifically characterized as a "block universe". I wonder if the idea of block universe was taken from Einstein's predecessor, Lorentz.

Einsteinian diagrams of spacetime as a 4-dimensional reference frame were described in the early 1900s, as was much of James' writing. Perhaps the idea of a 4-dimensional block universe (time as a spacelike dimension) was widespread in the late 1800s.

James decided his first freewill act would be to believe in metaphysically free will -- in opposition to his father's "iron block universe Calvinism".

Official theology: freewill heart with no-free-will skin

Official Christian theology also is determinism-centric; it is at dead center of countless debates, claims, accusations, defenses -- though I can only conclude that the resulting official position is just as jumbled as the notion of freewill itself, a kind of self-contradictory self-contradiction, where determinism is axiomatically accepted, and then the doctrine insists on a freewill which is pure genuine moral freewill and yet not contrary to hard determinism -- deliberately making a point-blank self-contradiction and admitting it, and then waving the wand of "It's a mystery beyond human understanding, proving how fallen man's reasoning is."

No amount of studying the official positions on this conflict will ever clear things up. The type of moralism that contradicts hard determinism is insisted on by almost all theology -- even by almost all Calvinist theology. The vibe of such theology is, absolutely affirm determinism, and then fabricate a conception of moral agency that is essentially freewillist, yet push and force that conception of pure and simple genuine moral culpability *infinitesimally close* to pure determinism.

Even the most absolutely doctrinaire Calvinists speak pure hard determinism out of one side of their mouth, and then later wreck their position by affirming later, out of the other side, a pure type of moral responsibility that inherently contradicts pure hard determinism -- as though one can mix oil and water if one just affirms both staunchly enough.

Even the most extreme Calvinist cannot resist priding themselves on their purity of determinism, and then turning right around and promoting a *style* and *conception* of moral agency that is *inherently non-determinist; this is why in the end, the spirit of Calvinism ends up being a confusing, tricky, deceptive bait-and-switch game, with a heart of freewill thinking covered by a thin veneer of fervently affirmed hard determinism.

They publically proclaim determinism, but are in fact unregenerate, having still a living heart of freewill moral thinking at their core -- a kind of wolf in sheep's clothing, better seen as a goat in sheep's clothing (freewill thinking with an outer layer of no-free-will assertion).

It makes little sense to claim to enjoy determinism "wherever one can find it", but then later make an exception and not enjoy determinism in organized religions.

Organized religions are only somewhat poor sources of information -- their doctrine is also largely informed and shaped by authentic experiential mystic-state evidence.

Received religion is a product of an ongoing struggle between authentic mystic religion and literalist religion. It's a mistake to treat exoteric and esoteric religions as entirely separate. If exoteric lost all contact with esoteric, it would not last long. Instead, the game works through a process of co-optation, counter-cooptation, and ongoing power struggle between esoteric and exoteric.

Thus exoteric religion is forced to incorporate much authentic, esoteric religion -- but in a distorted fashion. Exoteric religion is not simply false; rather, it is a debasement and distortion of authentic, esoteric religion. Once you know the distortion, the authentic aspects become visible within or behind official, exoteric religion. The canon clearly and identifiably includes gnostic experiential aspects, in addition to literalist additions and distortions.

Exoteric religion is not entirely false; it is forced to remain largely true; forced to concede and co-opt -- not wholly reject -- the authentic esoteric version of religion. There is much truth and wisdom, in somewhat distorted form, in official Christianity. There is often more truth in official theology than in modern speculations about the life of the historical Jesus.

Truth is comprehended by studying both esoteric and exoteric writings. Rejecting whole libraries full of official Christian books cannot succeed at understanding what happened -- such wholesale rejection is too easy; that is, wishful and lazy.

Instead, the hard work needs to be done of *transforming*, or un-deforming, official, exoteric writings; what we have is garbled writings, and our task is to un-garble them -- this is true when reading modern rationalist philosophy books about determinism as well; all books are more or less garbled, including literature, mystic writings, poetry, and other genres and schools.

Victory can only be won from the inside: by de-garbling the official story and revealing how it became garbled; not by simply brushing it aside. Trying to brush it aside only ends up reinforcing the status quo. Taking over the status quo is the only viable game plan.

Authentic esoteric religion is very deterministic -- entirely so... except that mystics often talk about transcending determinism by exiting the deterministic cosmos (ascending beyond the realm of the fixed stars). Exoteric religion has various blends of determinism and freewill moral thinking. Today's unlearned "evangelists" are purely freewillist, even though practically all official intellectual theology starts with pure determinism and then typically attempts to add a little tiny bit of freewillist thinking, to prop up freewill moralism.

Religion is determinist -- but the radical exception is the very recent trend of Openness Theology (Clarck Pinnock) -- a shocking absolute contradiction of all previous official theology. It's unabashedly freewillist (the orthodox response is "surely the End is near; this is certainly the great apostasy of the Church"). Historically, official theology starts off with the axiom of determinism, and strives to then somehow add pure and simple genuine freewill-type moral agency.

The Grace of God and the Will of Man

Clark Pinnock (editor)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556616910

Robert "Tim" Kopp wrote:

>The only excuse for evil in the world is that man has free will: otherwise God would be inflicting needless suffering on mankind. (The Paradox of Epicurus could not then be avoided.) At least, this seems to be the reasoning of all mainstream versions of Christianity with which I am acquainted.

In the hardline Calvinist view on the problem of evil, 5-point TULIP Calvinism doesn't say that evil is due to "free will". They'd say the fallen and corrupted will -- they'd talk of *will*, but not "free will".

Bad will, weak and impotent will, they'd say; unregenerate will, but they wouldn't say "free" will in the sense of metaphysically free.

Calvinism has an odd way of talking about determinism; determinist Philosophy and Calvinism are evidently intent on avoiding discussion. Calvinism is determinist, but insists on locking itself within a closed, specialized way of treating determinism. Calvinist determinism discussion has a different flavor than philosophical discussion of determinism.

Augustine says we were created with free will but abused it and lost certain aspects of free will, particularly the ability to turn/convert and the ability to desire to reach out to receive and accept the offer of savior/grace/salvation.

Philosophical determinism says that's absurd; we never had free will, because the very concept is a logical abomination and conceptual chaos -- there can't have been freewill, cannot be now, and cannot be freewill in the future, because the very idea of freewill is impossible.

Augustinian theology sometimes seems to say that we had freewill, fell and lost freewill, and if God choses to save us, we'll regain freewill -- that reading has a certain sophisticated cleverness and meaning. The child has the delusion of freewill, the initiate experientially realizes the impossibility of freewill, and then is turned and can be said to "transcend" determinism in some beyond-conceivable way -- a kind of "regaining freewill".

Freewilists think they espouse and have free will, but (per the horizontal determinism perspective), the words they say are caused by a sequence of other events leading up to them. Their words are caused by a series of events leading up to them.

There is also the important vertical determinism perspective: the mind of the theology-illiterate evangelical is arranged in a framework of freewillist assumptions, thinking that oneself is an independent agent autonomously crafting one's own future, but the words they speak are actually timelessly emanated from the One or from the hidden, underlying block universe -- caused by a hierarchy of control, where the control in the person is not a pure independent source of control.

In the mystic state, this can actually be experienced as being controlled as by puppet strings -- not strings over time, but timeless strings perpendicular to time. This vertical perspective emphasizes levels of causality rather than a series of causal events. The freewillist mind has no-free-will/no-separate-self in actuality, unconsciously, but is arranged in the conscious, seeming, apparent form of freewill/separate-self.

Freewill isn't a specified theory so much as a type of associational operating system and mental worldmodel with feeling-based attitudes. It's pretheoretical.

>>I don't blame religion for coming up with free will. Religion is a depository of good and bad ideas from the rest of the culture. Religion is just one group perpetuating an idea.

Religion cannot be blamed for perpetuating freewill thinking as though it only did that. Much religion is highly deterministic. Only by avoiding close study of religion can we say that religion is freewillist.

To a large extent, determinism is the foundation of Protestantism, even though they ever are backsliding into the Arminian heresy of freewillism, and even though in practice Protestantism is freewillist moralism painted up with superficially determinist doctrine. Calvinism -- hardline Protestantism -- would fervently deny the accusation that they perpetuate freewill thinking.

I'm now completely confident of my reading of the woodcut in Ken Wilber's book Up From Eden showing the puritans following the devil. The picture certainly represents freewillist thinking dressed up with determinist doctrine; that is the ideal, most perfect and enlightened way to read the picture. That core-vs.-shell conflict is a perfect characterization of the paradox of "performative self-contradiction" of Calvinist moralism.

This is also a perfect, intellectually beautiful example of hypocrisy: Calvinists preach determinism, but think of hell, heaven, conversion, salvation, repentance, etc. in an essentially freewillist sense; within a freewill-structured network of word-meanings.

>>This is also a perfect, intellectually beautiful example of hypocrisy: Calvinists preach determinism, but think of hell, heaven, conversion, salvation, repentance, etc. in an essentially freewillist sense; within a freewill-structured network of word-meanings.

Muslims are right to worship a black box, but wrong where it adheres to a conception of morality -- a network of word-meanings -- that is essentially freewillist, and freewillist thinking goes hand-in-hand with literalism and lack of mystic-state experiencing. There is a true and false meaning of "I deny my freewill for Allah the all-powerful" -- one meaning of that phrase asserts the reality of freewill moral agency, and the other, higher meaning asserts that freewill moral agency is essentially an illusion.

Michael wrote:

>the woodcut in Ken Wilber's book Up From Eden showing the Puritans following the devil. The picture certainly represents freewillist thinking dressed up with determinist doctrine; that is the ideal, most perfect and enlightened way to read the picture.

Such a reading is best and truest in that it goes with a system of thinking that is more efficient and ergonomic than any other at leading to a most-intense peak experience, a peak experience that resonates well with much or most of the best of classic mysticism. There is inherently some circularity in selecting an interpretation and selecting examples of a tradition of that particular interpretation.

Most ancients had a confused blend of notions including the entheogenic determinist enlightenment view, and I pick out that aspect and artificially isolate and elevate it, whether or not a vote of the ancients would concur with my view. The best thinking of the best thinkers supports my view -- how do I know that's the best aspect of their ancient jumble of ideas? My view or paradigm resonates most strongly within that particular circular phase-lock loop.

I dub this the "paradigm resonance intensity" theory of hermeneutics.

Calvinism & single-future block universe

This section covers Calvinism, the block universe vs. the quantum multiverse, and the thinking skills that are required for achieving rational transcendent thinking.

sekhmet wrote:

>> I do not need to have an opinion either way. It is Michael who has expressed his own opinion, but the problem is he rambles and waffles so much you have to work hard to pin down what he is really saying.

I suspect that is a dishonest statement, you do not really think I ramble or waffle but are just evading my arguments because you are unable to refute them. You're just bluffing and making up excuses to evade my points. There is waffling and self-contradiction, but it's not mine. My position is rich with the requisite distinctions, which I consistently maintain -- this is different than the true waffling I've seen by those who claim to reject any and all possible types of ego death. In trying to hold such an untenable position, they end up waffling, when they are trapped when I try to pin them down.

sekhmet wrote:

>>[Block-universe ego death determinism is] a secular form of Calvinism. Calvinism is also not gnostic as it is opposed to gnosticism.

George wrote:

>I read and understand the block universe theory. It is not Calvinism. Calvinism is a form of Christianity where God predetermines everything. The block universe is simply another name for the current scientific theory of infinite universes

No, the infinite universes idea is the "quantum multiverse", which has multiple futures. The "block universe" as established in Einstein's relativity has a single, closed, even preexisting future.

George wrote:

>and there is nothing Christian about it. The theory is that whatever choice you make a copies of you in another nearby universes have made different choices. This continues until all possible choices have been made.

The single-future block-universe idea *is* associated with the debate about God's foreknowledge and our lack of metaphysical freedom that follows from God's foreknowledge. The reason why God's foreknowledge is considered to kill our metaphysical freedom, the missing connecting link, is that God's foreknowledge implies that there is only a *single* future. The implied reasoning is:

o Given: God knows whether we are saved or damned.

o Then: God knows what our future is.

o Therefore: We have only a single, definite future.

o Therefore: We cannot change our future.

o Therefore: We have no metaphysical freedom.

If you define God like Mithras as residing outside the block universe, then God does make choices that are not subject to the rules of the prison-like block universe. The initiate exits the block universe with and as Mithras -- or Jesus/God. The gnostics talk of two gods, and it falls on you to keep track of which is which. During initiation, we experience ourselves as being in a frozen-future block universe, and this is a life-or-death problem for the accustomed ego, and we pray to a god outside the block universe, and postulate and hope there is such a rescuer god, and we (like Gnostics) postulate and hope that we can change our identity to somehow step outside the block universe.

But it is highly hypothetical, wishful, and (in a perfectly vague sense) "transcendent" to assert that we can actually step outside the block universe. Is it *really* possible for the initiate to step outside the block universe, with and as the cosmos-transcending savior-god? That is an issue for debate.

George wrote:

>Don't think all theories of predestination are Calvinism. That is simply not true. For example predestination is also a part of some variations the big bang theory which do not involve a god at all.

______________________

I do not ramble or waffle. My statements have always been clear, explicit, simple as possible, and straightforward. We have to distinguish between the apparent or practical way we "choose", and the determined nature of choosing. There are multiple "possible" futures as far as we know, but there is only a single actual future.

Such accusers would say the Gnostics waffle too, because the Gnostics talk about two Gods, one good and one bad. This is simply a matter of keeping track of multiple definitions of a term, so don't call it "waffling". Others in the conversation have truly waffled and do not retain distinctions between different usages of terms. The orthodox criticized the Gnostics for saying orthodox creeds but meaning something different by their words.

The block universe and multiple universes are two different ideas. The block universe posits a single, closed, preset, even preexisting future. Multiple universes considers the future open in the sense of forever branching. Perhaps each branch preexists - the book The End of Time seems to take this position. But the block universe, which I endorse, is much simpler and a much smaller universe; in it, from the point of view of our knowledge, there are many virtually possible futures, but only one actually possible future: the one that already exists and has always eternally existed.

I endorse simplicity as a principle for choosing between metaphysical systems, and I maintain that the single-future, non-branching block universe is simpler than the branching-future multiverse. I endorse the block universe and reject the multiverse. The latest development in quantum mechanics seems to be that the Copenhagenists are endorsing the multiverse.

The multiverse is the kind of psychologically happy and ego-empowering response the Copenhagenists would pick when the directionality of time is challenged as it currently is. People now are saying that time is an illusion. The Copenhagenists respond by saying that there are multiple futures -- this empowers ego, they feel, and protects and preserves our metaphysical freedom. I expect the anti-Copenhagenists (such as myself) to instead retain the early 20th-century idea of a single-future block universe.

In the block universe model (as used by Einstein, for example), posits a single, closed future. This is always how I have defined the term. I only *mentioned* the idea of multiple universes to reject it. I don't think you could find a statement of mine endorsing multiple universes. I would not have said such a thing because I have never liked the idea -- it is too complicated. I seek the simplest system, which has a single, pre-existing future.

Neither do I constantly shift my terminology in different discussion groups. Sometimes I discuss various usages of terms, but I keep track of these usages and differentiate them, and my own preferred usage is clear. Higher thinking must be able to acknowledge and differentiate between multiple usages and keep track of them.

Some people are not at that advanced level -- they are unable to understand the whole idea of multiple usages; they are unable to differentiate and keep track of multiple connotations of terms and pick one while rejecting the others. To them, I may appear to be waffling when I say that the future is "open" in sense A but not in sense B, or when I say the ego "dies" in sense A but not in sense B.

I have always clearly communicated which sense I endorse and which I reject. Others are not good at keeping track of such senses of meaning, so they claim I "waffle". What can I do but give up on such an audience that is unable to admit that there are multiple meanings of terms, and is unable -- or unwilling -- to keep track of which meaning I endorse and which I reject?

Copenhagenists conflate the (positive) collapse of our knowledge about a particle's wave function with a change in the particle itself -- however, I don't think this is only due to a lack of philosophical skill; they are deliberately conflating the two senses of "wave function collapse" in order to promote a non-scientific agenda: stealing power for the mind, saying that consciousness collapses the wave function.

That is what the Copenhagenists say -- it's not what I say. I cannot trust people in these groups to read what I write. They are more interested in distorting it than understanding it. I mention the idea of multiple universes, then people claim I endorsed it. If people can't keep track of that, there is no hope for communication.

I *hate* the idea of multiple universes and never would have endorsed it, never would have done anything but mention the idea in order to reject it.

Read the Intro

http://www.egodeath.com/intro.htm

I have to invent a better way to summarize my position, but much of my postings *are* clear summarizations.

The predestination aspect of Calvinism is correct according to my ego-death theory. But the retaining of heaven and hell by Calvinism doesn't make sense -- Calvinism rejects metaphysical freedom, thus they must reject true moral responsibility, thus they sometimes admit that their heaven and hell is not about reward and punishment, but is only for "the glory of God". That's the big mystery of Calvinism: what is the purpose of heaven and hell, if moral responsible agency is an illusion?

Now I have mentioned Calvinism and agreed with part of it, and disagreed with another part of it. The fumbling thinkers online will say that I waffled on Calvinism, or that I am a Calvinist. Please try to keep track of my clear points. Do I waffle in the paragraph above? Are my points so unclear as people evidently find them? That paragraph is typical of the writing in my postings. If you can't keep track of my position on Calvinism in the paragraph above, because I accept one part and reject another, then there is no hope for communication in these discussion groups.

My thinking is simple as possible and I know exactly what I think, and which aspects of conventional ideas I accept and which aspects I reject. Ask me a question, and I can summarize my exact position. My core theory has been complete for several years. My final assessment is that people in the discussion groups are overwhelmed by the new combination of ideas and the new distinctions of terminology I introduce.

I suppose it is not a complete waste of time to attempt to keep people clear on what notions I assert and what notions I reject. Even though it is the fault of the readers that they cannot keep track of the distinctions I clearly make, I still should ideally take responsibility for being even clearer, but there is not much room for improvement in my clarity or simplicity of ideas -- my writing already is very clear and simple, despite the chronic problems inherent in semantics, where the same terms are involved in multiple competing networks of connotation.

Another good example of my clear statements but the fuzzy reading by others is when I said that the ego-death theory could be used for good or evil. What more neutral, clear, simple, and practical statement could be made? But despite quoting me correctly, some readers then said I endorsed its use for evil, while other readers said my words didn't mean that.

Those who saw it know what I mean and they cannot deny that I am being grossly misread as though some readers are blind to even the clearest statements. With such willful and/or fumble-fingered misinterpretation, there is no hope for communication with such an audience. Those who saw it have to admit my complaints and frustration are warranted.

Time and again I have put a clear and simple position statement forward, only to see it read every which random way. I do my part of writing as clearly as possible; people *have* to do a better job of reading clearly, and have to take responsibility for their confusion as readers. I truly do not believe that my writing lacks clarity -- I think it is a shining example of clarity.

Fortunately, I do sense that people are interested in gaining a better understanding of my position on relevant ideas such as Calvinism and the quantum-mechanics multiverse. As long as people are interested in gaining a clearer understanding, there is yet hope for communication. One thing I can do, which is time-consuming but very effective, is to break up postings into short postings with an accurate Subject line. Or, at least, add subheadings within the postings.

I have lost interest in the question of whether Jesus existed. I read the Christ myth books -- it is established plenty well enough that we have no more basis for believing in the historical Jesus than for believing in the gods of Olympus. It is unprofitable to pursue the "question" of Jesus' existence much further.

Greater profit is to be had in examining the *meaning* of seeing and identifying with the spiritual Christ -- what does it mean to experience Christ, and how does that compare with the other mystery-religions? This is the question deserving our full attention, the question which will profit us. Experiencing Christ and experiencing the single-future block universe are closely related, as in the Mithraic experience of being born forth from the rock cosmos.

Order of salvation, grace, will-violation

Michael wrote:

>>Reason justifies our transcendence of Reason to ascend and be born out from the block universe, to exit the cosmic cave and be born into the realm of the highest God, a realm outside that of Reason and cosmic determinism.

C wrote:

>That is Grace (Charis). It is not from ourselves but from outside what we define as ourselves in the Kosmos.

I have a detailed conception of Grace in conventional Western theology, but not of Charis. This official type of theology is relevant to your Gnostic points. As always, we must be masters of word-networks. It will never do to merely blurt words; we must define multiple networks of meaning *of* the words. Individual words or isolated phrases can't be true or false; only word *networks*, defined networks of terms and meanings, can be true or false.

The Order of Salvation is that the alien hidden transcendent God takes the initiative first (and ultimately is the prime mover of all thoughts), gives His grace to us to make us want to be lifted up, or make us want to sacrifice the lower self-concept. Transcendence or salvation happens through our mental action, yet at some level, we are always driven from beyond by Grace.

I walk out of the cosmos by "my own effort", but each motion I do is driven by Grace as prime mover; as an agent with initiative, mine is always a null initiative, a mere secondary mover, which is the "self-initiative" that that puppet has. Does the puppet walk off the stage by its own action? Yes, but the nature of its own action is always merely secondary action.

Some theologians talk of our being given a portion of God's free will. I am able to define word-networks so as to agree, though that's not the way I prefer to describe the mind and world. I prefer to promote the notion of "virtual free will".

Regarding the Order of Salvation, I'm a hardline Calvinist, but am a mystic in my conception of what salvation, sin, heaven, and hell are. Consistent bona fide Calvinism holds that the sinner is saved by repenting but the repenting is driven by the Holy Spirit as prime mover, and is only driven by the sinner in a completely weak sense -- the sinner is an empty secondary mover, a mere cog, a channel, a vessel.

In practice, typical Calvinists promote isolated no-free-will concepts, but chronically *think* using an overall freewillist framework (they are Puritans who yet follow the self-willed Goat).

Salvation happens "through my action", where "through" is understood as an empty, passively driven conduit. My action exists, but it's not primarily driven by "me" as egoic freewilling agent; I as ego am a mere renter of this dwelling. The owner of the dwelling is the real actor and prime mover who moves me to move toward Him. I can't take any primary sort of ownership for my action; I'm only an "actor" in the sense of a pretender of being a prime mover.

All my action is a passive reaction, a secretly coerced action, coerced from a hidden plane so that I only secondarily initiate my action; my secondary initiation is driven by the prime initiator. Salvation is not from my action -- salvation (Gnosis, enlightenment) is *through* my mental action but not where "through" is taken to mean "from" as a primary source.

Salvation is through my mental action where "through" means my mental action is only a driven, secondary source, driven and turned and willed by Grace that is given or subtly coerced -- never against my will; much more subtle; there is no "my will" other than that will-orientation that Grace makes me have. Some complain that such Grace forces us against our will -- but that complaint makes the mistake of assuming the reality of that sense of "our will".

There simply is no "my will" beyond whatever Grace gives to me. Grace creates and defines my will entirely, there can be no "my will" in addition to whatever Grace has put in me.

Freewill maudlin version of cancelling moral debts

The Jewish religion may have had more of an integral incorporation of ethics, forming a meaning-flipping system strongly focusing on flipping the meaning of ethics conceptions. Pagan mystery-religions might not have centered their meaning-revealing dynamics on ethics.

The statement "God so loved the world, he sacrificed his only son" seems inherently to imply, assert, and further entrench lower, egoic thinking: freewill moral agency.

In the lower, egoic reading of the Christian myth-religion, you always remain thought of as a freewill moral agent, and the literal punishment of the literal Jesus magically legally cancels your guilt, like a Jewish guilt-sacrifice of an animal. For God so loved the world, wanting to save the freewill souls from deserved punishment in Hell, that he sacrificed his only, beloved son.

This cleared (somehow) the guilt away from the freewill moral agents, making them morally spotless freewill moral agents, ready to stand before God in judgment on the last day, and pass the judgment, being clothed (somehow) with Jesus' righteousness -- the only freewill moral righteousness which meets God's perfect standards.

I don't know if other mystery-religions talk of cancelling sins or transferring them to a mythic figure -- did anyone other than the Jews use the language of "sin" as we hear it today, with the implication of freewill moral agency? If everyone back then took no-free-will for granted, my theory of meaning-flipping about ethical concepts applies to later Christianity better than early Jewish proto-Christianity.

The whole meaning-flipping system about "forgiveness of sins" may be original with Christianity, and its most distinctive character. Or aspects of that may come from Zoroastrianism and Orphism, and Egyptian religion (weighing the soul can be read as conventional freewill moral agency judgment).

The meaning-flipping contrast between freewill-type "good" and "evil" versus Platonic "truth" and "untruth" is surely found to some extent in many religions, but this was made the key theme or device of Christianity, early on -- almost a hyper-ethical religion.

The Stoics were highly interested in ethics, but believed no-free-will. They may have found this meaning-flipping delightfully clever, intellectually.

Calvinism as covert strange-loop & endless regress

To be saved, what must you do? You must have faith in Jesus. But due to total depravity, you are constitutionally incapable of exerting the act of having faith in Jesus. So, for that to happen, *God* must initiate the action, by giving you the grace to have faith in Jesus. Not too bad, so far. Now the vexing problem arises, never solved by any Calvinist: for God to give you grace, what must you do?

How do the Calvinists answer this, officially? They avoid it, and in practice, they say "assume it to be so!" In other words, "have confidence that you have been given the grace that makes you have faith in Jesus and be saved. Ok, so... and many poor souls were vexe