Check it out:

SCENE FIVE

(Light transition: Rooster and April.)

ROOSTER: Hey.  Can I talk to you a sec?

APRIL: Sure.

ROOSTER: About... you know... the other week...

APRIL: It’s all right.

ROOSTER: No. I’ve got to apologize.  I shouldn’t’ve yelled at you.

APRIL: It probably did me good.  Really.  You shouldn’t worry about it.

ROOSTER: I didn’t want to yell at you.

APRIL: I know.

ROOSTER: You weren’t upset or anything?

APRIL: I’m not anymore.

ROOSTER: I don’t really know why I did it.  I mean, yeah, I do.  See, I was really pissed off at Jeff and...  Well, you know how he can be.  I was really mad.  That’s why I yelled at you.  But I didn’t mean anything by it.  I know it’s kinda fucked up.  It’s just, you know, I get like that at everybody when I’m in that kind of mood. 

(She doesn’t say anything.)

ROOSTER (CONT'D): Well, I gotta go.  It’s really great, though.  I mean, you could’ve been pissed off.  I mean, you’re really good.  I enjoy your company...

APRIL: Same here.

ROOSTER ... you could’ve been just awful.

APRIL: Why did you run away?

ROOSTER: What?  I never ran away from home.

APRIL: No, no, no.  Freshman year.  Right at the start of school.  I was walking through here on my way downtown and all of a sudden you were right next to me and I knew who you were, of course, because the night before there’d been a sort of get-together at the dorm and you were there, so when I saw you right next to me I was surprised but glad because I wanted to meet you and then all of a sudden you said that you’d mistaken me for somebody else and then you ran away before I could say anything.

ROOSTER: It wasn’t me.

APRIL: It wasn’t?

ROOSTER: No.  You musta got me mixed up, some other guy.

APRIL: Oh.

ROOSTER: I mean, I was there at the dorm...  that happened.  But not the thing in the square.

APRIL: If something like that had happened, I would have remembered.  Cigarette?

ROOSTER: I should really get back to work.

APRIL: So should I.

ROOSTER: A cigarette won’t hurt, though.

APRIL: No.

(He takes a cigarette from her and lights it.)

ROOSTER: I was embarrassed.  That’s why I ran away.

APRIL: See...

ROOSTER: You knew, didn’t you?  That it was me.

APRIL: Yes.  Are you nervous or something?

ROOSTER: Sometimes.  No wait, you mean now or then?

APRIL: I mean now.

ROOSTER: No.  Why?

APRIL: I don’t know.  Why are you?

ROOSTER: I dunno.  But we’re beginnin’ to sound stupid. 

(She laughs.)

ROOSTER (CONT'D): Have you always been so pretty?

APRIL (laughing some more): Oh...  God...

ROOSTER: One of my problems is I never ask personal questions.  Listen.  You can’t help the way you look.  I understand.  It’s the same with me.  I’ve always been handsome.

APRIL: You’re not handsome.

ROOSTER: Yes, I am.

APRIL: You’re not handsome at all.  You’re funny looking.  And you have those funny tatoos.  And you wear funny clothes in a funny way.  And look at me. (He does) And smile. (He does) No, it doesn’t help.  You’re just awful.  Let me see...

(She kisses him.)

APRIL (CONT'D): There.  That’s better.

I thought this song by Metric was pretty cool:




There's also an acoustic version of this song here.

Related: Save It For Later

The greatest monologue Shakespeare has ever written is in Hamlet (Act 3 Scene 1). Here we have two incredibly gifted actors doing the famous soliloquy:

Mel Gibson:


Kenneth Branagh:


I favor Gibson's performance more than Branagh's. Branagh gave a more cunning and vindictive interpretation of Hamlet. And all things being fair that is what the story of Hamlet is really about: revenge. (And to tell you the truth I liked Branagh's movie more than Franco Zeffirelli's). Gibson on the other hand gave a more sentimental and I daresay playful display of young Hamlet. The emotional conflict of the character was quite brilliantly done. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Different "Hamlet" actors:
Laurence Olivier
Derek Jacobi
Patrick Stewart

I just picked up Michael Baigent's latest book Racing Toward Armageddon. Although I haven't finished reading the book, I found it quite fascinating. No doubt this book would serve atheists and skeptics alike in disparaging many "end-time delusions" propagated by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. However, I think there's some hypocrisy on the part of the skeptic. I don't know if Baigent is an atheist but surely he realizes that atheists hold to an end-time scenario as well. In fact (and in my opinion), it's even worse than the Christian's, Muslim's, or Jew's.  At least for these religions, there's hope in the end. But not for atheists.

Two words: heat death.  Heat death is basically what the world will inevitably come to. It's the atheist's "armageddon" except there is no war, but a universe collapsing. Everything that is made and done and accomplished on earth will not last or be remembered, because all will be annihilated.  As theologian and philosopher William Lane Craig puts it:

Scientists tell us that everything in the universe is growing farther and farther apart. As it does so, the universe grows colder and colder, and its energy is used up. Eventually all the stars will burn out,and all the matter will collapse into dead starts and black holes. There will be no light at all. There will be no heat. There will be no life, only the corpses of dead starts and galaxies, ever-expanding into the endless darkness and the cold recesses of space, a universe in ruins. The entire universe marches irreversibly toward its grave. So not only is each individual person doomed, the entire human race is doomed. The universe is plunging toward inevitable extinction. Death is written throughout its structure. There is no escape. There is no hope. If there is no God, then man, and the universe, are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death row, we stand and simply wait for our unavoidable execution. If there is no God, and there is no immortality, then what is the consequence of this? It means that the life that we do have is ultimately absurd. It means that the life we live is without ultimate significance, ultimate value, ultimate purpose.

[William Lane Craig, cited by Erik J. Wielenberg, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 16.]

As far as I can tell no atheist philosopher that I know of disagrees with Dr. Craig's assessment. On the contrary, they would agree with him! However, there's a catch. Many atheists have said that although life is ultimately and objectively meaningless, we can at least have subjective meaning. Atheist Jeff Lowder affirms this:



Technically, he's right. I don't see how someone can't have meaning in life despite there being no ultimate meaning.  However, what good is it to live life if life is no good anyway? Is it worth the task? Of course not.  That's like building a bridge but knowing it's going to get knocked down anyway.  Why build on something worthless if it's going to stay worthless no matter what you do with it?  Furthermore, think of the psychology behind this. You have to fool yourself into thinking that life is meaningful even though you know it's not. That is, man must lie to himself in order to live life "meaningfully". This is what Loyal D. Rue called the "noble lie":

The option of the noble lie introduces a third voice into the debate, one which first agrees with the nihilists that universal myths describing the origins, nature, and destiny of human existence are pretentious lies but then insists, against the nihilists, that without such lies humanity cannot survive.

[Loyal D. Rue, By the Grace of Guile (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 5.]

If someone decides to have meaning in their life, then who's meaning is more meaningful? And who's meaning is right? No one's.  This has lead atheist Dan Barker to admit that life is no better than a piece of broccoli!

For the Christian life ends with Christ's reign. For the Muslim the Mahdi will overcome the Dajjal. For the Jew a coming Messiah will rebuild the Temple. For the atheist, evil and human suffering wins because in the end the universe dies. Bertrand Russell knew this all too well:

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

[Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 107.]

Without question Martin Scorsese's most original film is After Hours. This film would not have been the same had it not been for Rosanna Arquette's off-beat performance as Marcy. Personally, it's my favorite performance by her:




Some good acting: David Thewlis

I was getting my haircut when my barber told me I should get used to girls who like to bitch and moan and complain a lot. I told her I don't like girls who nag and nag and nag. She laughed and said in her heavy Vietnamese accent, "Then you never get girlfriend, Eddie!" Nagging about problems may help relieve some stress, but it's not fun listening to. I always have an open ear if someone has personal problems.  Aside from that, it gets irritating when they complain excessively. It's like they need someone for their auditory masturbation.  You ever see them in action? I was at a supermarket and a woman in front of me complained to the employee that there was no designated line.  Why she complained about this despite being in front of the customers (meaning, she was first to make a purchase anyway!) is beyond stupidity.  Then she insisted on getting the manager to make a formal complaint.  It doesn't stop there.  After chastising the manager, she then asked for the corporate number to complain about policies at the supermarket chain. All this trouble just because there was no sign in the store that said "form line here." You should have seen the face on the customers. They had a "oh, brother" look to her "I demand you kiss my ass" attitude.  But can you imagine being married to something like that? I think a good idea to know how a girl is really like is by taking her shopping; and if she reacts the same way this girl did, then, dude, dump her. A door test isn't bad, neither:



It's these same type of people who tend to be cynical, pessimistic, and gossipy. People like that aren't trustworthy. The chances of someone gossiping about you is 99% if they love gossiping about everybody else. I once hung out with an individual who had no self-control over his mouth. He had to find something wrong with everybody he met.  I mean, he just had to find people's faults. Worse yet, he'd knock people down if they were in a situation that wasn't their fault. For instance, if a mentally handicapped boy approached us, he'd mock and ridicule that child!  It got so bad that if a damn dog came running by he'd make fun of it, too.  Who does that?! Needless to say I had to distance myself from this man-child (or many-mouthed bird).

Nobodies perfect but something to think about:

11 Personal Traits of Unsafe People
by psychologists Henry Cloud and John Townsend

1.  Unsafe people think they "have it all together" instead of admitting their weaknesses.
2.  Unsafe people are religious instead of spiritual.
3.  Unsafe people are defensive instead of open to feedback.
4.  Unsafe people are self-righteous instead of humble.
5.  Unsafe people only apologize instead of changing their behavior.
6.  Unsafe people avoid working on their problems instead of dealing with them.
7.  Unsafe people demand trust, instead of earning it.
8.  Unsafe people believe they are perfect instead of admitting their faults.
9.  Unsafe people blame others instead of taking responsibility.
10.  Unsafe people lie instead of telling the truth.
11. Unsafe people are stagnant instead of growing.

9 Interpersonal Traits of Unsafe People

1. Unsafe people avoid closeness instead of connecting.
2. Unsafe people are only concerned about "I" instead of "we".
3. Unsafe people resist freedom instead of encouraging it.
4. Unsafe people flatter us instead of confronting us.
5. Unsafe people condemn us instead of forgiving us.
6. Unsafe people stay in parent/child roles instead of relating as equals.
7. Unsafe people are unstable over time instead of being consistent.
8. Unsafe people are a negative influence on us, rather than a positive one.
9. Unsafe people gossip instead of keeping secrets.

Although this list isn't about complainers and many-mouthed birds per se, it's about people who have emotional issues.

I don't feel sorry for them.  I see no excuse for acting like a spiteful, little contemptible, piece of fecal matter.  It doesn't matter if you're having a crappy day, have PMS, or suffer from Asshole Turret Syndrome.   There's no good justification for acting like a jack ass. There's just something wrong with these unscrupulous people. They have to destroy something good. If it means corrupting one's innocence, they'll do it. If it means making something beautiful ugly, they'll do it. If you're a success, they'll remind you of your failures. If you're enjoying a nice sunny day, they'll cast a dark shadow over it. If you're a virgin, they'll turn you into a whore. I knew a girl who suffered from all 20 of these aforementioned "unsafe" traits. And I wish I knew about it sooner, so I could have avoided her. She seemed to have it all together, until I found out she was nothing more than a manipulating tramp. There was a dark side of her that betrayed the nice, sweet, innocent, sensitive woman she portrayed herself as. This goody-goody girl lived her life like she was a prize straight from a cracker jack box (if that makes any sense). She was like a citrus "fruit" drink that uses artificial flavoring to get that  authentic taste and feel - and it tastes good - even though in the end you know all that superficial stuff isn't real (in fact, it was bad for you).  But for what seemed like a good person at the time, I thought she was attractive; although I was just sport for her. I was a game. The jig was up, and I got hurt.  The way she unmercifully hurts people makes me wonder how she can sleep with herself every night.

Beware of those who use you as their emotional punching bag. Never tell them anything personal.  Never show them your vulnerability.  And be especially careful having mutual friends with them, lest they use them against you.  Sometimes you'll have to fight back. And it's not easy doing that with unsafe people.



It seems the "many-mouthed bird" article has relevancy to the current situation.  A super hot model was a victim of slander from an anonymous blogger. The model sued google to find out the identity of the blogger.  Google relented and identified the blogger.  After getting caught red-handed this many-mouthed bird blogger apologized to the model (I guess she wasn't that anonymous after all), but seems to be changing her mind. Now, she's suing google, all the while blaming the model for this whole incident! Yup, she's an "unsafe" one.  What a mess...!

Do they exist? With the death of my grandmother I've been pondering about this more and more. During my research, I was lead to the works of Dr. JP Moreland (PhD in Philosophy at USC). Moreland happens to be a friend of a friend. And he's well known within religious circles when it comes to philosophy, science, and religion. I have on occasions met him and asked him a few sophisticated questions.  He was gracious and kind in his reply.  Anyway, I found these interviews and debates with him interesting. And they deal with the topic at hand. Enjoy.

Moreland on immaterial things:



Moreland on the supernatural:



I wish the "supernatural" video was unedited. I saw the unedited version, and Moreland beat Tabash. But this video was edited in a way to make it look like the debate was even. Oh, well. You can checkout another debate Moreland was in on the question of God's existence here.

Moreland made at least 4 arguments for the immaterial soul (this topic is quite similar to what I've previously wrote here). Check it out:

A Case for the Immaterial Nature of the Self

Recent literature offers at least four arguments for the disembodied identity  of the soul.

1. Basic Awareness of the Self

When an individual such as a mom pays attention to her own consciousness, she becomes aware of her own self (i.e., her ego, "I," her center of consciousness) as being distinct from her body and from any particular mental experience she has. Mom simply has a basic direct awareness of the fact that she is not identical to her body or her mental events; rather, she is the self that has  a body and a conscious mental life.

The following example illustrates this point. Mom's son looks at chocolate chip cookies sitting on a counter and walks toward them. In so doing, he experiences a series of what are called phenomenological objects or cookie representations. That is, several different cookie experiences replace one another in rapid succession. As he approaches the cookies, cookie sensations change. The aroma grows stronger.  What originally may have appeared to be ants take shape and become recognized as chocolate chips. Further, because of the lighting in the kitchen, the cookies change color slightly, they may be a little on the dark side. The cookies don’t actually change in smell, shape, or color; but the son's cookie "experiences" do.

Of course, the son is aware of all the different experiences of the cookies during the fifteen seconds it took to walk across the room. But if paying attention, the son is also aware of two more things. First, he does not simply experience a series of sense-images of a cookie. Rather, through self-awareness, the fact is also experienced that it is "I" the self who has each cookie experience. Each cookie sensation produced at each angle of perspective has a perceiver who is I. An “I” accompanies each sense experience to produce a series of awarenesses—“I am experiencing a cookie sense image now".

The son is also aware of the basic fact that the same self that currently has a fairly large cookie experience (especially as the hand comes to within reach of the cookie) is the very same self as the one who had all of the other cookie experiences preceding this current one. In other words, through self-awareness, one gains an awareness of the fact that "I" am an enduring "I" who was and is (and will be) present as the owner of all the experiences in the series.

These two facts—"I" am the owner of self-experience, and "I" am an enduring self who exists as the same possessor of all self-experience through time—show that a person is not identical to his experiences. Self (or “I) is the thing that has them. In short, “I” is a mental substance. Only a single enduring self can relate and unify experiences, a fact that property dualists and physicalists cannot adequately account for or explain away.

2. More than Third Person

A complete physicalist description of the world would be one in which everything would be exhaustively described from a third-person point of view in terms of objects, properties, processes, and their spatiotemporal locations. For example, a description of a cookie in a room would go something like this: “An object exists three feet from the south wall of the kitchen and two feet from its east wall, and that object has the properties of being light brown, circular, sweet, and so on."

The first-person point of view is the vantage point used to describe the world from one's own perspective. Expressions of a first-person point of view use what are called indexicals—words such as “I,” “here,” “now,” “there,” and “then.” Here and now are where and when “I”am. There and then are where and when “I” am not. Indexicals refer to me myself. “I” is the most basic indexical and refers to a self that is known by acquaintance with one's own consciousness in acts of self-awareness. “I” am immediately aware of my own self and “I” know who “I” refers to when “I”use it; it refers to an individual as the self-conscious self-reflexive owner of his own body and mental states.

According to physicalism, no irreducible privileged first-person perspectives exist. Everything can be exhaustively described in an objective language from a third-person perspective. A physicalist description of a mom would say, “There exists a body at a certain location that is five feet tall, weighs 115 pounds,” and so forth. The property dualist would add a description of the properties possessed by that body, such as the body is feeling pain, thinking about lunch, or can remember being on vacation with her children in Grandview, Missouri, in 1965.

But no amount of third-person description can capture Mom's own subjective first-person acquaintance of her own self in acts of self-awareness. In fact, for any third-person description, an open question always exists as to whether the person described in third-person terms is the same person as Mom. She knows her self not because she knows some third-person description of a set of mental and physical properties and because a certain person satisfies that description. She knows herself as an ego immediately through being acquainted with her own self. She expresses that self-awareness by using the term “I.”

“I”refers to Mom's own substantial soul. It does not refer to any mental property or bundle of mental properties she is having, nor does it refer to any body described from a third-person perspective. “I”is a term that refers to something that exists, and does not refer to any object or set of properties described from a third-person point of view. Rather, “I”refers to Mom's own self with which she is directly acquainted and who, through acts of self-awareness, she knows to be the substantial possessor of her mental states and her body.

3. The Modal Argument

Thought experiments have rightly been central to debates about personal identity.  For example, people are often invited to consider situations in which two persons switch bodies, brains, or personality traits or in which a person exists disembodied.  In these thought experiments, someone argues in the following way: Because a certain state of affairs S (e.g., Mom's existing in a disembodied state) is conceivable, one can justifiably think that S is metaphysically possible.  Now if S is possible, then certain implications follow about what is/is not essential to personal identity (e.g., Mom is not essentially a body).

People use conceiving as a test for possibility/impossibility throughout their lives.  Mom knows that her son can become President (even if she thinks it is highly unlikely) because she can conceive it to be so. She knows square circles are impossible because they are inconceivable, given her knowledge of being square and being circular.  To be sure, judgments that a state of affairs is possible/impossible grounded in conceivability are not infallible.  They can be wrong.  Still, they provide strong evidence for genuine possibility/impossibility. In light of this, this author offers the following criterion:

For any entities x and y, if grounds exist for believing one can conceive of x existing without y or vice versa, then an individual has good grounds for believing x is not essentially identical to y or vice versa.

Application of these insights about conceivability and possibility to the modal argument for substance dualism comes in many forms. One version of the argument can be stated in the following way:

The law of identity:  If x is identical to y, then whatever is true of x is  true of y and vice versa.


Mom can conceive of herself as existing in a disembodied state.
If she can strongly conceive of some state of affairs S that S possibly attains, then she has good grounds for believing of S that S is possible.


Therefore, she has good grounds for believing of herself that it is possible  for her to exist and be disembodied.


If some entity x can possibly exist without y, then (i) x is not identical  to y and   (ii) y is not essential to x.


Mom's body cannot possibly exist disembodied (i.e., her body is essentially  a body).


Therefore, she has good grounds for believing of herself that she is not identical to her body and that her physical body is not essential to her.

A parallel argument can be advanced in which the notions of a body and disembodiment are replaced with the notions of physical objects.  So understood, the argument implies the conclusion that Mom has good grounds for thinking that she is not identical to a physical particular nor is any physical particular essential to her. A parallel argument can also be developed to show that possessing the ultimate capacities of sensation, thought, belief, desire, and volition are essential to her, that is, she is a substantial soul or mind.

A full defense of the argument cannot be undertaken here, but the second point, which states “Mom can strongly conceive of herself as existing disembodied,” compels further discussion. A number of things that make a person (Mom, in this case) aware of her “self” and of her body give support to the conceivability expressed in the statement.  Mom is aware that she is unextended (“fully present” at each location in her body, as Augustine claimed), that she is not a complex aggregate of separable parts, nor is she the sort of thing that can be composed of physical parts. Rather she is a basic, unity of inseparable faculties (of mind, volitions, emotion, etc.) that sustains absolute sameness through change, and that she is not capable of gradation (she cannot become two-thirds of a person, not even if her legs are amputated or she loses some of her memory at age 90).

In some near death experiences, people report themselves to have been disembodied.  They are not aware of having bodies in any sense.  Rather, they are aware of themselves as unified egos that exemplify sensations, thoughts, and so forth.

Moreover, Christians who understand the biblical teaching that God is a bodiless spirit also understand by direct introspection that they are made in God’s image in the sense that they are spirit but also have human bodies. New Testament implies that people will and, therefore, can exist temporarily without their bodies.  In II Corinthians 12:1-4, Paul asserts that he may actually have been disembodied.  Surely Paul’s willingness to consider this a real possibility came at least in part from an awareness of his own nature through introspection, his recognition of his similarity to God in this respect, and his knowledge of biblical teaching.

All these factors imply that people can conceive of themselves as existing in a disembodied state. This implication provides grounds for thinking of such a case as being a real possibility (even if it is false though, of course, this author does not think it is false).

4. Free Will, Morality, and Responsibility

To say that a human is a free will being is to say that humans exercise what is called libertarian freedom: Given choices A and B, a person can literally choose either one. No circumstances exist that are sufficient to determine a choice. A person’s choice is up to the individual, and if Mom does A or B, she could have done otherwise. She acts as an agent who is the first cause or ultimate originator of her own actions. Moreover, her reasons for acting do not partially or fully cause her actions, she does.  Rather, her reasons are the teleological goals—the purposes or the ends—for the sake of which she acts. If Mom takes a nap because she’s tired, the desire to satisfy her need for rest is the end for the sake of which she acts freely.

If physicalism is true, then human free will does not exist. Instead,  determinism is true. If Mom is purely a physical system, nothing in her has the capacity to freely choose to do something. Material systems, at least large-scale ones, change over time in deterministic fashion according to the initial conditions of the system and the laws of chemistry and physics to which such systems are subject. A pot of water reaches a certain temperature at a given time in a way determined by the amount of water, the input of heat, and the laws of heat transfer.

Moral obligation and responsibility make little or no sense if determinism is true. Morality seems to presuppose freedom of the will. If Mom “ought” to do something, it seems necessary to suppose that she can do it, that she is in control of her actions. No one would say that she ought to jump to the top of a fifty-floor building to save a baby, or that she ought to stop the American Civil War. Clearly, she does not have the ability. If physicalism is true, Mom does not have any genuine ability to choose her actions.  Further, since free acts seem to be for the sake of goals or ends, if physicalism (or mere property dualism) is true, there is no ultimate purpose and, thus, there can be no libertarian free acts.

One may safely say that physicalism requires a radical revision of common-sense notions about freedom, moral obligation, responsibility, and punishment. On the other hand, if these common-sense notions are true, physicalism is false.

The same problem besets property dualism. Property dualists handle human actions in two ways. First, some property dualists are epiphenomenalists  (e-pi-fi-′na-me-nal-ists). This belief proposes that a person is a living physical body having a mind, the mind consisting, however, of nothing but a more or less continuous series of conscious or unconscious states and events . . . which are the effects, but never the causes of bodily activity. Put another way, when matter reaches a certain organizational complexity and structure, as is the case with the human brain, then matter produces mental states as a fire produces smoke. The mind is to the body as smoke is to fire. Smoke is different from fire (to keep the analogy going, the physicalist would identify the smoke with the fire or the functioning of the fire), but fire causes smoke, not vice versa. The mind is a by-product of the brain, which causes nothing; the mind merely “rides” on top of the events in the brain. Hence, epiphenomenalism rejects free will, for it denies that mental states cause anything.

A second way that property dualists handle human action is through a notion  called event-event causation.  To understand event-event causation, consider a baseball that breaks a window. The cause in this case is not the baseball itself (which is a substance), but an event: the baseball's being in a certain state—a state of motion. The effect is another event: the window being in a certain state—the breaking state. Thus, one state or event—the throwing of a baseball—causes another state or event to occur—the breaking of the window.  Further, according to event-event causation, whenever one event causes another, some deterministic or probabilistic law of nature relates the two events.  The first event combined with the law of nature is sufficient to determine or fix the chances for the occurrence of the second event.

In contrast to the property dualist employment of either epiphenomenalism or event-event causation (which deny genuine free will) stands agent  causation, which is an important part of an adequate libertarian account of freedom of the will. One example of agent causation is a typical case of a human action: Mom's raising her arm and throwing the baseball. When she raises her arm, she, as a substance, simply acts by spontaneously exercising her causal powers. She raises her arm; she freely and spontaneously exercises the powers within her substantial soul and simply acts. No set of conditions exists within her that is sufficient to determine that she raises her arm.  Moreover, this substantial agent is characterized by the power of active freedom, conscious awareness, the ability to think, form goals and plans, to act teleologically, and so forth.  Such an agent is an immaterial substance and not a physical object. Thus, libertarian freedom is best explained by substance dualism and not by physicalism or mere property dualism.

In summary then, substance dualism offers the libertarian freedom denied by property dualism because it adopts either epiphenomenalism or event-event causation. Thus, given the truth of a libertarian account of free will, moral ability, and moral responsibility; property dualism, no less than physicalism, is false. One's commonsense notions about moral ability and responsibility are almost self-evident. People all operate toward one another on the assumption that these are true concepts (and these common-sense notions seem to assume libertarian free will). However, if physicalism or property dualism is true, people have to abandon and revise their common-sense notions of moral ability, and responsibility because free will is ruled out. One wonders if such a revision is worth the price. These common-sense notions seem more reasonable than physicalism or property dualism. If anything should be abandoned, it is the latter, not the former.

Contrast this to what Dick believes about the nature of human beings:

"Think about it. On one planet, and possibly only one planet in the entire universe, molecules that would normally make nothing more complicated than a chunk of rock, gather themselves together into chunks of rock-sized matter of such staggering complexity that they are capable of running, jumping, swimming, flying, seeing, hearing, capturing and eating other such animated chunks of complexity; capable in some cases of thinking and feeling, and falling in love with yet other chunks of complex matter. We now understand essentially how the trick is done, but only since 1859." (p. 366-367)

The life that Dick describes reminds me of Shakespeare's MacBeth in Act 5: Scene 5 - "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

I daresay, if life is to be important, there has to be some type of transcendent nature to it.

My grandmother just passed away two days ago.  She was getting very weak before she finally died. Our family knew this was coming. We're getting funeral engagements scheduled as I write this.

I was always curious about the death process. What exactly do the living see and feel when and after they die? The best way to find answers to that question is through the testimonies of people who have actually died.  But no dead body will tell you anything.  So, we must rely on the witnesses of people who had near death experiences (NDE) - that is, people who were clinically dead but came back to life.  When it comes to NDEs probably no man has been referenced more than psychologist and medical doctor Raymond Moody, PhD.  In his ground-breaking research, he's found that many NDEs are incredibly similar to one another no matter what the victim's cultural or religious background.  He listed 15 common elements that happen to them.  Here they are:

1. Ineffability.  NDErs often say they cannot adequately express what happened to them.  Remarks such as "There are just no words to express what I am trying to say" are common....

2. Hearing the News. Many recall hearing "doctors or other spectators in effect pronounce them dead" or make statement indicating as much....

3. Feelings of Peace and Quiet.  Nearly all NDErs remember experiencing an "extremely pleasant feeling"...

4. Noise. Distinct sounds are sometimes heard either at, or near, "death."  They may be pleasant... or rather harsh and disturbing....

5. Darkness.  A sense of "being pulled very rapidly through a dark space of some kind" is frequently mentioned by those who have undergone a transcendental NDE.  This enclosure has variously been described as "a cave, a well, a trough, an enclosure, a tunnel, a funnel, a vacuum a void, a sewer, a valley, and a cylinder"....

6. Body Separation.  Many NDErs find themselves looking at their physical body "from a point outside of it, as though they were 'a spectator' or 'a third person in the room'".... Some say it is similar to watching television or viewing figures and events "onstage in a play."

7. Meeting Others. A number of NDErs become "aware of the presence of other spiritual beings in their vicinity." Deceased loved ones seem to be encountered most often.... Communication with spirits identifying themselves as "guardians" has also been reported.  Others encounter entities who are never identified.... Occasionally, only a voice is heard....

8. Being(s) of Light.  NDErs are affected most profoundly by their "encounter with a very bright light."  This light, or "Light," has been described as both personal... and impersonal.... Sometimes several beings of light are mentioned....

9. A Life Review.  An extraordinarily rapid and panoramic life review, which is meant to "provoke reflection" and how NDErs have lived their lives is common.... It is incredibly vivid and real: "In some cases, the images are reported to be vibrant color, three-dimensional, and even moving.... Even the emotions and feelings associated with the images may be re-experienced as one is viewing them."

10. The Border/Limit.  A point of no return in the form of a border/limit is regularly mentioned by NDErs: "a body of water, a gray mist, a door, a fence across a field, or simply a line."

11. Coming Back.  Every NDEr obviously came back. This return is usually the result of a decision made by NDErs during their experience.... Sometimes, however, it occurs quite unexpectedly.... A few claim that they were forcibly sent back....

12. Telling Others.  NDErs have "no doubt whatsoever" as to the reality and importance of their experience.  But the skepticism of others often leads them "to remain silent on the subject or else to reveal their experiences only to some very close relative."

13. Changed Lives.  Almost all NDErs feel their lives have been "broadened and deepened" by the NDE and that they themselves are "more reflective and more concerned with ultimate philosophical issues." Others report that life is more precious to them. In a small number of cases, individuals have gained intuition bordering on psychic. "Lessons" learned from an NDE usually focus on the importance of "love for others."  Obtaining academic and experiential "knowledge" in this life is also emphasized.

14. New Views of Death.  Most who have had an NDE no longer fear physical death.  All doubts about there being an afterlife have been eradicated.

15. Corroboration.  A select number of NDErs have reported, with some degree of accuracy, what occurred during the time they were supposedly unconscious.

[Raymond Moody, Life After Life (New York: Bantam Books, 1976), 5.]

Since the start of the NDE research, more information has come to light.  In so many words, this is what will most likely happen when you die (I say "most likely" because there have been NDE experiences that differ*, but these are the most common):

A. You'll have an out-of-body experience - you'll feel like you're floating out of your dead body.   You'll see yourself dead in the hospital (or wherever).  Despite this grief, you'll actually feel good in this new body of yours. And, given the circumstances, you'll be at peace, too.

B. Suddenly, a tunnel will appear.  At the end of it will be a bright light.  As you enter the tunnel, you'll move quickly to the near-blinding light. As bright as the light is, you'll feel incredible warmth, peace, joy, and contentment. In this place of light, you'll see deceased friends and family.

C. A being will approach you and ask you something along the lines of "How was it?" or "What did you learn?"  As you discuss your life you'll actually see pictures and visions of your past life.  You'll see everything from the good things to the evil things you've committed. And you'll actually relive those feelings again. (Some who have gone through this realized two important things during the discussion: their relationship with God, and how well they demonstrated love <-- I'm NOT making this up! NDErs hardly ever stay atheist when they come back**, but some do like A. J. Ayer. However, NDE does not tell you what religion it's conforming to.)

D. If you're a NDEr someone will approach you and tell you that your time is NOT up yet.  Hence you'll revive back into your natural body.

Make of this what you will, but, no doubt, my grandmother had an out of body experience. And I hope she lingered long enough to see me weep over her dead body, and know that my love for her was sincere. I'll miss her.


============================

* - Now, this afterlife doesn't seem all that bad.  In fact, it may lead you to commit suicide if you want to live in a state that seems perpetually peaceful. But I thought, surely, there has to be some kind of final judgment for monsters like Hitler or Stalin. After doing some research, there have been cases where NDErs experienced a sort of "hell". Some scenarios I read were truly frightening.  Read Howard Storms own experience in My Descent Into Death - to make a long story short, after he died, he was lead into a hallway where dark beings began to beat him and eat his flesh. The following words are often used to describe this "hell": Darkness, heat, feelings of terror and despair, souls in torment, a terrible stench, evil and menacing creatures.

** - Moody says so in the documentary based on his research here.

Okay, well, maybe not all Americans like the guy. He's so darn controversial! But I'm talking about French Reformer John Calvin. And today is his 500th birthday. These are some of my theological notes on his system of thought. Enjoy.

... when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.'"

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah."

- Romans 9:10-29

Nowadays in these evangelical churches (and Roman Catholic churches) if you use the word "John Calvin" it's like yelling an expletive in a conservative crowd. For what it's worth, no Christian group but the Calvinists have shown me that theology is an academic field that should be taken seriously. Having visited churches labeled "Reformed" they set aside the touchy-feelie Gospel encouraged in today's sensational-driven churches, and deal with theology in a serious and scholarly manner. (Figures, since Calvin studied to be a lawyer - and you can see that influence in how well argued and thought out his works are.) Of course, I'm sure there are churches who go beyond emotional nuances with Biblical doctrine, but you can't beat the Reformers at it.  John Calvin has been underestimated far too many times. Of course, he's not perfect, but he's a kick-ass theologian. Despite being 5 centuries old, he's still controversial today.  Possibly, the most controversial aspect of John Calvin is his relationship with Servetus and how he had him executed. As I found out this wasn't true (9 min. audio clip):

..





According to Dr. Curt Daniel's dissertation (good luck trying to find that book, but his doctoral dissertation was on the "History and Theology of Calvinism"):

Biography.

...

B. John Calvin was born July 10, 1509 in Noyon in Picardy, 60 miles northeast of Paris. Upon reaching his teenage years, he began formal studies towards becoming a Roman Catholic priest. He studied theology at Paris from 1523 to 1528, and did quite well. But he became increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt Catholicism of the day, and decided to study law instead. So he transferred to Orleans and Bourges for studies towards becoming a lawyer (1528 to 1532), Soon after finishing formal studies he wrote his first book, -a detailed commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia. In effect this was his doctoral dissertation.

C.  But his heart was still restless, until at last it found its rest in God through true conversion in 1533. He left Roman Catholicism forever. But these were dangerous days for those who left Rome. Heavy persecution dogged the French Protestants, and Calvin himself was imprisoned for a short time from 1534 to 1535. So he decided to leave France.

D.  His goal was to move to Basel, Switzerland, and take up a quiet and secluded life of study and writing. It ---never to be. Passing through Geneva, he met the leader of, the Swiss French Reformation, Guiilaume Farel, who was immediately so impressed with young Calvin that he cautioned him with God’s punishment if he did not stay in Geneva to preach and teach. Calvin stayed.

E.  In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was immediately hailed throughout Europe as the finest systematic theology by a Protestant Reformer. It was to be his literary masterpiece as he later edited and expanded it several times through his lifetime....

F.  Calvin and Farel immediately began the reformation of the church in Geneva. They proposed a Confession and oath for the city and its citizenry. All citizens were required to take the oath of faith or leave Geneva. Virtually all Genevans accepted/But when in 1538 Calvin called for the church to have authority to fence the Lord’s Table by excommunicating all those living in public sin, both he and Farel were exiled by the City Council.

G.  So Calvin went to Strassbourg in southern Germany near France. There he pastored the French-speaking congregation and lectured in the theological academy. He became a close friend of Martin Bucer, who would have a profound influence on Calvin’s theology. Calvin would stay in Strassbourg for 3 years until the Geneva City Council changed its mind and agreed that Calvin and Farel were right after all. Yet it would be nearly 20 years until the church formally had the right to excommunicate citizens living in known sin.

H.  It was in Strassbourg that Calvin met his wife. Actually, Bucer and Farel had twice tried to match Calvin with a prospective wife, unsuccessfully. A certain Anabaptist had converted to Reformed thinking under Calvin’s theology, but he soon caught and died of the Plague. Some time later, his widow would become Mrs. John Calvin. Her name was Idelette de Bure. She brought 2 children with her, a teenage boy and a young girl. John and Idelette had only one child themselves, but he died shortly afterwards. Idelette herself was constantly in ill health herself, and she died in 1549 after only 9 years of marriage. Calvin never remarried. And he too was in continual ill health.

I.  From 1541 Calvin spent almost all of his life in Geneva. In addition to his preaching and teaching duties he organized a school system for the children of Geneva, a system of charity for the poor and elderly; Calvin even designed the public sewer system of Geneva when the City Council couldn’t agree on a plan.

J.  One of his main goals was a truly godly society. He viewed the Church and State on equal levels - separate in some areas, related in others. Before Calvin, Geneva was notorious throughout Europe for its profligacy; after Calvin, it became one of the godliest cities the world has ever known. Calvin’s theology of the godly society gave rise to the modern ideas of the democratic republic, the Free Enterprise economic system popularly called Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic.  They were put into practice in Geneva. The plan worked.

K.  In 1555, Geneva became the refuge of Protestant refugees from all around Europe, particularly Great Britain. These English and Scottish leaders sat under Calvin’s teaching and brought that theology back with them when they returned to solidify the English and Scottish Reformations. Another major milestone in Calvin’s life was the establishment of the Academy of Geneva in 1559, which later became the University of Geneva. But for all this, his main calling was pastor-theologian.

Calvin and Luther.

A.  Calvin in Switzerland and Luther in Germany were the 2 main forces in the Reformation. If one were to assembly a ‘Reformation menagerie, Luther would be a bull and Calvin would be an owl. Luther was forceful and outgoing; Calvin was introverted and pensive. They complemented each other’s personalities. Calvin’s personality was more like that of Phillip Melanchthon.

B.  Yet they never met face to face. You must remember, Luther was 25 years older than Calvin - old enough to be his father. In fact, Calvin was only 8 years old when Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517. In some respects, Melancthon was the go-between. We know of only one letter between them. In 1545, the year before Luther’s death, Calvin wrote to him and began: “To the very excellent pastor of the Christian Church, Dr. Martin Luther, my much respected father.” He concluded, “Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my ever-honored father.”

C.  Luther rarely mentions Calvin in his writings. When Calvin refers to Luther, it is almost always with a high degree of respect. Luther tended to look down on Calvin, suspicious of his ties with the deceased Zwingli, In a letter to a friend, Calvin wrote that, in spite of his admiration for Luther, he felt that the German has a certain weakness: “You have reason to be offended that Luther retracts nothing, palliates nothing, but stubbornly maintains all his opinions.”

Misconceptions About Calvin.

A. One popular misconception is this: “Calvin was a dour old Stoic, secluded like Scrooge in an ivory tower.” This is incorrect. True, Calvin preferred solitude (“I am by nature timid, mild and cowardly), but he never found the solitude, which many think he had. Even after Idelette died, he lived most of his life with relatives and their children. He certainly was no Scrooge, for he had very few possessions and declined raises in pay. And he definitely was not a cold Stoic he enjoyed a kind of bowling every Sunday afternoon and a certain game involving the throwing of keys; in a letter he wrote “I shall soon come to visit you, and then we can have a good laugh together”; and he confessed to weeping long and hard after the deaths of Idelette, their son, and several friends.

B. Another misconception: “Calvin was a superstitious reactionary and the Pope of Switzerland.” Well, he certainly was not superstitious, for he opposed many of the superstitions of Romanism. Reactionary? Hardly, Calvin was one of the intellectual giants of his day. A Pope? That overlooks Calvin’s estimation of Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Vermigli as his equals, not inferiors. Moreover, the Libertine party of Geneva succeeded in having him kicked out of town more than once, and he never was formally on the City Council. He was so unpopular in some quarters that some people named their dogs after him to show their contempt. No, Calvin was not a Pope or folk-hero.

...

Calvin’s Writings.

A.  Calvin usually preached in French and wrote in Latin. His literary career lasted only 33 years, but he remains one of the three most prolific Christian writers of all time (with Luther and Spurgeon). On average, he wrote about 1,000 pages a year. This is astounding when one considers that he did not write simple religious pabulum but only solid and scholarly theology. And before the typewriter and word processor were invented, too. He wrote more than we read in a year.

B.  Moreover, only about two-thirds of his writing were ever published. Geneva still has thousands of unpublished sermon manuscripts. And there are others that have never been translated into English. Thankfully, there are international teams working to publish the manuscripts and to translate all that was never translated.

C.  His massive Commentary on the Bible was his largest undertaking. In fact, it is one of the largest Bible commentaries ever written by a single man - 45 large volumes of over 400 pages each. They were usually based on his lectures. They have been translated and reprinted several times, and scholars of all stripes consult them. Calvin managed to write commentaries on every book of the Bible except Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation - 75% of the Bible was covered. Romans was first and he never finished Ezekiel. (He also published sermons on Job and 1 Samuel, but no comments).

D.  Calvin’s first book, as we said, was a commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, a Stoic treatise on civil clemency. He also wrote over 4,000 letters - usually of a theological nature, not the “Wish you were here” kind. He wrote these to the other Reformers, kings and dukes, the Catholic hierarchy, friends, and even to some Protestant women imprisoned in Paris for their faith. 686 have been translated.

E.  Then there were dozens of theological treatises. Some were against the Libertines and Anabaptists, such as his first one entitled Psychopannychia, refuting the Anabaptist notion of soul-sleep between death and resurrection. Then there were several important treatises on the Reformation of the Church: church-state relations, whether Roman Catholicism could be salvaged, Catholic relics, a refutation of the Council of Trent’s decrees, etc. Calvin also wrote several pieces on the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, avoiding Rome and Lutheranism’s excessive literalism on the one hand and the Zwinglian and Anabaptist mere symbolism on the other.

F.  He wrote some treatises on predestination as well: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God (1552) and A Defense of the Secret Providence of 6od~Tl558). These have both been translated into English in the aptly named volume, Calvin’s Calvinism. Calvin also authored the Genevan Catechism, a couple of short confessions of faith, the Gallic Confession (the main confession for the French Reformed Church), the Consensus TigurinusTwith Bullinger, thus uniting the 2branches of the Swiss Reformation), and others. But lest one think that he wrote only advanced theology, one should read the delightful little devotional The Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life. He also wrote a hymn, a poem, and several paraphrases of the Psalms to be sung in worship.

G.  Thousands-of his sermons were taken down and published. Calvin preached an average of 5 times a week, plus lectures. His sermons are masterpieces of exposition. The sermons of some preachers are timely; Calvin’s are timeless. He stayed close to the text, preached consecutive series in French in a slow voice without notes. Among the many series that have been translated and are currently in print: Deuteronomy (200 sermons), the Pastoral Epistles (134), Ephesians (48), the Saving Work of Christ (20 selections).

The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

A.  The Institutes was Calvin’s masterpiece. It is the most important book to come out of the Reformation. It is a sort of systematic theology, though not coldly organized like a dictionary. It flows. It is personal. The theme is the true knowledge of God through the gracious salvation of Christ, whereby we now truly know ourselves and glorify God. The overall structure is Trinitarian, and Calvin expounds the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles Creed, and also covers the sacraments, church government and church-state relations.

B.  One thing that is especially amazing is that Calvin published the first edition when he was only 26 years old - meaning he began work on it when only 24! He continued to expand it in 5 other editions, so the last £1559) is five times the size of the first (1536). Both editions have been translated into English.

No study of Calvin, Calvinism or the Reformation is complete without reading the Institutes.

...

Conclusion.

Calvin died on May 27, 1564 at the age of 55 in the arms of his successor, Theodore Beza. As per his request, there was no gravestone or monument. Though often ill, it is more accurate to say he worked himself to death and burned out for God. The greatest theologian since the Apostles was once mocked because he had no children. His reply: “God gave me a little son and took him away; but I have myriads of children in the whole Christian world.” How true.

Calvin had hundreds of points, but the most popular are 5 of them. Dr. John M. Frame explains them:

(1) Total Depravity: Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation.

(2) Unconditional Election: When God elects (chooses) people for salvation, therefore, he does not choose them because of anything in them. He doesn’t choose them because of their own goodness, or even because he foresees they will believe, but simply out of his totally unmerited favor — out of grace (Eph. 2:8,9).

(3) Limited Atonement: This is the most controversial of the five, because of Bible passages apparently teaching that Christ died for every individual. See, for example, 2 Corinthians 5:15, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2. There are “universal” dimensions of the atonement: (a) it is for all nations; (b) it is a recreation of the entire human race; (c) it is universally offered; (d) it is the only means for anyone to be saved and thus the only salvation for all people; (e) its value is sufficient for all. Nevertheless, Christ was not the substitute for the sins of every person; else, everybody would be saved. For the atonement is powerful, efficacious. It does not merely make salvation possible; rather it actually saves. When Christ “dies for” somebody, that person is saved. One of the apparent “universal atonement texts,” 2 Cor. 5:15, makes that point very clearly. Thus he died only for those who are actually saved. The biblical concern here is more with the efficacy of the atonement than with its “limitation”; perhaps we should call it “efficacious atonement” rather than “limited atonement,” and, having then lost the TULIP, develop through genetic engineering a flower we could call the TUEIP. But of course efficacy does imply limitation, so limitation is an important aspect of this doctrine.

(4) Irresistible Grace: Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled (Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11).

(5) Perseverance of the Saints: If you are born again by the Spirit of God, justified, adopted into God’s family, you cannot lose your salvation. God will keep you (John 10:27-30; Rom. 8:28-29). Perseverance does not mean that once you profess Christ you may sin all you please and still be saved. Many people have professed Christ hypocritically and have later renounced the Christian life. Those who apostatize, and do not return to embrace Christ from the heart, die in their sins. But if you have confessed Christ from the heart, you will certainly persevere, for you will not be dominated by sin (Rom. 6:14)

Mark Driscoll explains the difference between the 5 points of Calvinism and Arminianism:





I've heard it said that Calvin was not a Calvinist. That is to say he wasn't a full 5-point Calvinist (although, technically, you can still be a Calvinist and NOT accept all 5 points - don't ask), because he allegedly disagrees with the concept of "limited atonement" (at least this was claimed by Dr. Norman Geisler and more famously by R. T. Kendall).  It was none other than Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva) who distorted Calvin's writings and made it look like he believed the doctrine - so goes the theory.  Look, I actually read the writings of John Calvin and read most of Institutes of the Christian Religion.  There's no way Calvin disagreed with limited atonement. He fully embraced it.  Here's proof in his writings:

Hence it is that the whole world no longer belongs to its Creator, except in so far as grace rescues from malediction, divine wrath, and eternal death, some, not many, who would otherwise perish, while he leaves the world to the destruction to which it is doomed. Meanwhile, though Christ interpose as a Mediator, yet he claims the right of electing in common with the Father, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen" (John 13:18). If it is asked whence he has chosen them, he answers in another passages "Out of the world;" which he excludes from his prayers when he commits his disciples to the Father (John 15:19). We must, indeed hold, when he affirms that he knows whom he has chosen, first, that some individuals of the human race are denoted; and, secondly, that they are not distinguished by the quality of their virtues, but by a heavenly decree. [source]

And:

But it is by Isaiah he more clearly demonstrates how he destines the promises of salvation specially to the elect (Isa. 8:16); for he declares that his disciples would consist of them only, and not indiscriminately of the whole human race. Whence it is evident that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be set apart for the sons of the Church only, is abused when it is represented as effectually available to all. [source]

That is but a taste.  And I don't know how much more clear or obvious that can be. Dr. Paul Helm writes more about this controversy here, and Dr. Roger Nicole tackles this issue here.

Without question Calvin's views on the atonement of Christ may very well be the most controversial view. Super duper fundamentalist Jerry Falwell identifies "limited atonement" as heresy:



People don't like the idea of a loving God who especially loves the elect.  The common reply by Calvinist would be that God has mercy on whomever He wants.  As God said in Romans 9:15:

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

RC Sproul actually gave a lecture on limited atonement. Given this controversial nature.  I think it's worth listening to:



Dr. Greg Bahnsen on "limited atonement" here and here.



First, what Calvinism is not. From Dr. Curt Daniel's dissertation:

Among the popular but incorrect definitions or descriptions of it are these:

(1) It is the teaching that God won’t save a man if he isn’t one of the elect, even if he repents and believes the same as one who is elect.
(2) It teaches that Christians should not evangelize the lost ("Calvinism is against missions!").
(3) It teaches that God is an unloving tyrant and the author and approver of sin.
(4) It teaches infant baptism and therefore salvation by water rather than by Christ’s blood.
(5) It is a certain form of church government, namely Presbyterianism.
(6) It was the theological excuse for the Puritans’ witch hunts.

So, what's Calvinism then? Again, by Dr. Daniels:

The Definition of Calvinism.

A. Consistent Christianity. Some Reformed writers contend that Calvinism is “nothing more and nothing less than the Gospel, or the essentials of true Christianity. Others say “Calvinism is Paulineism”. These assessments are not precisely correct. They insinuate that unless one is a Calvinist, he is not a Christian. It is better to say that it is Consistent Christianity. This raises several problems and rejoiners:

(1) Some non-Calvinists contend that Calvinism is unbiblical because the terms “Calvinism” and “Reformed” are not found in Scripture. I would remind them that neither are the terms “Rapture” and “Trinity” found in the Bible. The truths of these, however, are found quite often.
(2) Other critics say, “I follow Christ, not Calvin”, sometimes appealingto I Cor. 1. They have a good point. But we would refer them to I Cor.11:1. We follow Calvin only as far as he follows Christ. We worship Christ, not Calvin. Andrew Fuller said, “I do not believe everything that Calvin taught, nor any thing because he taught it; but I reckon strict Calvinism to be my own system” because it was truest to Scripture.
(3) By the same standard, we need to be careful lest we make the doctrines of Calvinism more important than the Gospel. Spurgeon noted: “Calvinism to some is of more importance than Scripture.”
(4) Still others say, “Just study the Bible.” This neglects the Biblical teaching that God raises up teachers (Eph. 4:11) and that Biblical theology has a certain form or system to it (Rom. 6:17, 2 Tim. 1:13). We study Reformed theology only that we may better understand Scripture.

B.  The Five Points of Calvinism. One of the most popular ways of defining Calvinism is in terms of the Five Points, viz: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (= TULIP). Since these were explicitly formulated at Dort at a critical time in the development of Calvinism, they must be taken into account in any definition of Reformed theology. However, one problem is with point #3. Many Calvinists have moderated or rejected limited atonement; whether they are true or inconsistent is debated, but they are nevertheless Calvinists. The 5 do not stand and fall together, but the 4 certainly do. (More on this later).

C.  Predestination. When one thinks of “Calvinism”, the word “predestination”immediately comes to mind - and that is no coincidence [pardon the theological pun], Calvinism certainly gives more prominence to predestination and election than any other system. But one should not define Calvinism solely in terms of election or other soteriological truths, vital as they are.

D.  Sovereign Grace. This is closer to the truth. Reformed theology has a distinctive doctrine of the sovereignty of grace, both in its source and its end. One good thumbnail definition would be the title of the excellent book by Tom Nettles: By His Grace and For His Glory.

E.  The Sovereignty of God. This is the root of the TULIP. Understand it and the TULIP grows logically and naturally out of it; reject it and one cannot accept TULIP or be considered a Calvinist. It is the final sine qua non. To be precise, it is not sovereignty per se, nor even the Reformed view of it as a distinct attribute of God that is determinative. Rather, it is the way in which Calvinists describe it in relationship to the other attributes of God. Other systems either minimalize or deny this attribute, while Calvinists give it the proper place - both in relation to the other attributes and Man as creation and sinner.

Key chapters in defining Calvinism are Eph. 1 and 2, Rom. 8 and 9, John 6 and 10. But the key verse which sums up Calvinism best is Rom. 11:36, “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to Whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” Reformed theology alone teaches a God-centered theology - that God is absolutely sovereign in creation, redemption and glorification. That in a nutshell is Calvinism. The rest of this series will be merely elaborating on it as relates to its history, related doctrines and varieties.

I'm sure this brings up a host of questions. Personally, I'm a little perplexed myself, but these are just my notes.



This is a tough one. And there are different views. But to be brief there is what theologians call the doctrine of concurrence.  Dr. Wayne Grudem says it's the "fact that God cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do" (p. 317). Craig R. Brown explains:

With this understanding, it is possible to affirm that, in every event, both God's sovereign will and man's human will are operative. God brings His will to pass, no by canceling the will of the creature, but by working through the will of the creature. God's will is the "primary cause"; He works behind the scenes from the beginning of time to plan and initiate everything that happens. Man's will is the "secondary cause"; it carries out events in a manner consistent with God's will.

For example, when God wishes to save a sinner, He does not strike the individual with "divine lightning." Rather, He uses a godly man to witness to that individual. Man, the "secondary cause," appears to be the only cause, but in reality God is the "primary cause," for He works in the evangelist's heart to give him the desire to witness and in the recipient's heart to allow him to accept the truth he is receiving.

Grudem adds:

==============================

God's providential direction as an unseen, behind-the-scenes "primary cause," should not lead us to deny the reality of our choices and actions. Again and again Scripture affirms that we really do cause events to happen. We are significant and we are responsible. We do have choices, and these are real choices that bring about real results....

God causes all things that hapen, but... he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible choices that have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable.  Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture.

==============================

One of the clearest examples of concurrence in Scripture occurs in the story of Jonah. The author of this biblical book tells us that the men on the ship threw Jonah into the sea and simultaneously affirms that it was God who threw him overboard. God's providential direction of events did not coerce the sailors to act against their wills. They were unaware that He was influencing their behavior and actually prayed for His forgiveness. God chose to act through the choices of these real human beings, men who were morally accountable for their actions, in order to bring about His plan for the salvation of Nineveh. He caused them to choose to do what they did, but they did it willingly with no knowledge of His influence. (p. 47-49).

Greg Koukl on Free-Will and Calvinism here and here and here. Also a debate between James White and George Bryson here and here.



From Jason Robertson (M. Div. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary):

Amyraldianism "Low" Calvinism - Decree to Create Man, Decree to Allow Fall, Decree Atonement for all men, Decree Election and Reprobation

Infralapsarianism "Moderate" Calvinism - Decree to Create Man, Decree to Allow Fall, Decree Election and Reprobation, Decree Atonement for Elect

Supralapsarianism "High" Calvinism ["Hyper" Calvinism would count as Supra; although not all Supras are "Hyper" Calvinists - Eddie] - Decree Election and Reprobation, Decree to Allow Fall, Decree Atonement for Elect, Decree to Create Man

Note: Infra means after. Supra means before. Lapsus means fall.

Fact: Amyraldian is named after a French Calvinist named Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664).

Amyraldist or “Low” Calvinists believe that God decreed for Christ to die for all of mankind and then God chose who would be saved. Thus “Low” Calvinist can be called “Hypothetical Universalist” because they believe that it is hypothetically possible for all men to be saved, but since they will not choose Christ, God elected some to be saved. The greatest weakness in this view is that Christ died for the unelect but the atonement was of no effect, actually wasted. It is sometimes called “4-Point Calvinism” because of the universal atonement discrepancy. In other words, the “Low Calvinist” does not believe in Limited Atonement.  Nevertheless, this view still believes that only the elect get saved.

Supralapsarianist or “High” Calvinists believe that God chose to have an elect and thus decreed that which would make it happen, thus holding to the harshest form of double predestination. Homer Hoeksema, a High Calvinist, noted that according to this theory history unfolded exactly opposite of the order of God’s decrees, because God’s first decree (the elect) is His ultimate goal. There are two logical weaknesses with this view. One weakness in this is how can God elect out of that which doesn’t necessarily or potentially exist yet. High Calvinists have no answer for this.  The second weakness is how could God choose to elect and reprobate out of a non-fallen human race. But the High Calvinist appeal to Romans 9:11, noting that Jacob and Esau “had not done anything good or bad.” Also, the High Calvinist appeal to a purpose of giving the greatest glory to God by teaching that election and reprobation are based on nothing but bare sovereignty. Not all “High” Calvinist are hyper-Calvinist (anti-missionism, reject “Duty Faith”, and deny common grace), but all hyper-Calvinist are Supralapsarian. By the way, J.R. Rice and Norman Geisler were harmfully incorrect in claiming that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist.

Infralapsarianist or “Moderate” Calvinists believe God chose His elect from among Fallen mankind prior to the atonement decree, thus Christ only died for the elect. They appeal to John 15:19, “I chose you out of the world.” Also, they point out that the lump of clay in Romans 9 is obviously a “fallen” lump of clay. And they point out that if God had elected from an unfallen mass of humanity as the High Calvinist propose then that would not be grace, and the decree of reprobation from an unfallen mankind would not be just. All major Reformation Creeds are infralapsarian.

Remember: All Calvinists agree that whatever the logical order of God’s decrees, they were in etenity past by a sovereign God. That seperates Calvinist as Particularistic as opposed to Universalistic (Lutheran, Weslyan, Universalist), Sacerdotal (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox Greek), and Naturalistic (Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian).

Approximately only 5% of Calvinist are Supralapsarian. Most Calvinist are Infralapsarian (Moderate). Many Calvinist are Amyraldian. In fact, many Southern Baptist that I have met are Amyraldian even though they do not realize and would never consider themselves Calvinist.  And that is because most of them believe that there is only one kind of Calvinist and that is the Supralapsarian kind.  Of course, that is ironic since the Supra’s are the fewest, but since the Supra’s have among them the “hyper-Calvinists” they get most of the attention and “bad press.”

I truly believe that most of the debate that rages in the SBC over Calvinism is because most of the Amyraldians don’t even know that they are Calvinist, and they believe that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist. But in all my years as a Calvinist, I don’t know if I have ever met more than a couple of Supralapsarians… and even they were not hyper-Calvinist!

Say what you will about John Calvin, I think he was a rather interesting theologian who had a whole lotta guts!  Calvin's testicular fortitude makes you proud to be a man.  There's a story between him and a Libertine by the name of Philibert Berthelier who was ex-communicated from the church because of his adulterous affairs.  He wanted to take communion but Calvin wouldn't allow it.  Naturally, this pissed Berthelier off.  So, he had his political friends overturn the church's decision. Calvin still wouldn't allow his communion.  Finally, Berthelier came to the church with a group wielding swords to force Calvin to give them communion. Historian Dr. Steven J. Lawson described what happened next:

“Calvin descended from the pulpit, stood in front of the Communion table, and said, ‘These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned and dishonor the table of my God.’ Berthelier and the Libertines withdrew, no match for such unflinching convictions.” (p. 16)

Lawson briefly describes Calvin's life and ministry:




Addendum:

Dr. Robert W. Godfrey's lectures on Calvin's life and theology:

part 1:
..

part 2:
..

Dr. James White is probably one of the most popular Calvinists today, having written a book in response to Calvin-critic Norman Geisler; and debated George Bryson and Dave Hunt. Here, White responds to a lecture by Dr. William Lane Craig (a molinist).  He also briefly mentions the Protestant Reformation and Calvin's place in history:

Part 1:
..

Part 2:
..

A panel discussion on John Calvin here.

RC Sproul's lectures on predestination and free-will here.

Calvinism vs Arminianism: a debate with the Triabloguers; and Doug Wilson (Calvinist) vs Steve Gregg (Arminian):

1st Debate:
..

..

2nd Debate:
..

..

3rd Debate:

At the Expo - just a few pictures...



If I ever live in a retirement home I hope nurses are this hot:



Kelly's eyes are really this blue:



The Anime Expo was a disappointment. (It wasn't nearly as good as last year's.) For one, they had the AX Idol in the middle of the day without showcasing it at the Nokia Theater. Furthermore, the dance hall was 8 blocks away from the LA Convention Center! To top it off, I didn't enjoy the masquerade. I don't think I ever would have anyway. The skits are all lip-synced and the costume design presentations were awkwardly short. Anyway, maybe I'll go to the Comic Con to make up for a bad experience at the Anime Expo.

One thing I read and found interesting while at the Expo is the fact the US Manga Market has dropped 17%. This was even before the Economic Crisis of 2008.  As of 2009, it looks like Manga sells aren't doing any better. Some have speculated it's due to the easily accessible and cheaper use of the internet and the wild popularity of webcomics. If someone has an iPhone they can merely visit a website to find their favorite comic series and download it. Europe and Japan are using the webcomic phenomenon and America has yet to deal with it even more. I think we're in store for some pretty radical stuff with webcomics. They're already doing Eisner awards for them.