Paul's Passing Thoughts

Well, I guess it is official. After many years of thought and research, I am taking a position on predestination. Yes, for several years, I was a Calvinist, until I discovered that Calvinism is Progressive Justification and redefines the biblical new birth. So, I became skeptical of predestination because of the source, and the matter of priority; let’s get the gospel right and then worry about election. This is the focus of my book, It’s Not About Election; Why Calvinism is “Another Gospel”

How did I come to this conclusion? Some scripture is stand-alone truth. In other words, if a passage of scripture is absolutely objective in its context, all other scripture must bow to that plain meaning in order for us to claim the Bible is consistent and without error. If a Bible passage seems to contradict another passage that is plain in its meaning, the other passage that is more ambiguous needs more research. This is similar to an interpretive method called Occam’s razor:

Occam’s razor is a problem-solving principle suggesting that when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one—requiring the fewest assumptions—is usually correct. Often called the “law of parsimony,” it is a heuristic used in science and philosophy to cut away unnecessary complexity rather than a strict law guaranteeing truth.

Key Aspects of Occam’s Razor

Origin: Credited to 14th-century friar William of Ockham, though the idea dates back to Aristotle, who favored demonstrations using fewer postulates.

Philosophy & Science: In philosophy, it helps decide between hypotheses with equal explanatory power. In science, it is an abductive heuristic for model development, favoring theories with fewer entities or causes, famously used by Newton and Einstein.

With this being said, remember that good-old-fashioned commonsense is also a sound biblical hermeneutic.

Predestination is error because the gospel is good news. The gospel, according to the Bible, is intrinsically good news for everyone who hears it. That cannot be the case if some people are predestined to eternal damnation. In all fairness, the word euaggelion means “good message,” which could mean that it is a good message, but not necessarily for everyone. However, in many places in the Bible, this good message is also meant to be “preached,” which is the Greek word kerusso meaning “herald,” “proclaim,” and “publish.”

Hence, it is meant to be good news to all who hear it. Now, playing the devils advocate and totally overthinking the word, couldn’t the prefix, eu (good) merely mean, “holy” or of good moral character? No. Those are different Greek words:

The Greek prefix eu- (meaning good, well, or pleasant) acts specifically as an adverbial modifier indicating positive quality, ease, or correctness, unlike adjectives like agathos (morally good) or kalos (beautiful/noble). It often implies “happiness,” “abundance,” or “truth,” frequently serving as the direct opposite of the prefix dys- (bad/difficult).

Key Differences and Characteristics of the Prefix Eu-:

Adverbial Function: While eu- means “good,” it functions more accurately as “well” or “happily,” indicating how something is done or its state of being (e.g., euphemism = speaking well/pleasantly).

Opposite of Dys-: Eu- is specifically paired against dys-, emphasizing not just morality, but functional prosperity or normalcy, such as euthanasia (good/painless death) vs. dysthanasia.

Abundance and Ease: Eu- can denote something is “well-developed,” “thorough,” or “abundant,” such as eutrophic (nutrient-rich).

Meaning “True”: In scientific contexts, eu- can signify “true” or “proper,” as in eukaryote (true nucleus).

Common Eu- Words vs. Generic “Good”:

Eulogy: Good speech (praise).

Euphoria: Good/happy bearing (intense joy).

Euphony: Good sound (pleasing).

In contrast, other Greek “good” words (like agathos) usually describe a noun’s moral nature, whereas eu- focuses on the functional, pleasant, or fortunate state of the thing being described.

Notice the words with the eu prefix: eulogy, meaning praise. Euphoria, meaning elation. Euphony, a sound that pleases, like music that uplifts. From the viewpoint of heaven, the gospel is a message that is meant to bring joy to all that hear it. Luke 2: 9,10 brings these ideas together:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Full stop. The message is a joyful message to “all people.” I am not going to bore you with more Greek words, but here, “all” means everyone and everything with no exceptions (all inclusive), and “people” means all of humanity, and Christ was born “unto” all people, or all of humanity. So, at the very least, you can totally reject the whole limited atonement thing. And as I have stated many times before, salvation is not atonement to begin with. Salvation is an ending of sin, not a mere covering. Furthermore, Christ came to end the law; so, who is born under law? Answer: everyone.

In addition, if Calvinism is wrong about the gospel, and it is, and wrong about limited atonement, and it is, it can also be wrong about predestination, and it is.

The gospel is meant to be a message of joy to everyone who hears it because it is defined that way and meant to be perceived that way by every human being that hears the message. That couldn’t be true if some people are predestined to reject it. How is it potentially good news for them? The end of WWII was joyful news to Americans and Europeans, but not the Germans. It was only bad news to the Germans because of the way they thought about the news and the things that formulated their thinking. I believe the same to be true about the gospel; people reject it because of the way life has formulated their thinking, not because God predetermined the news to be of a different substance to different people. The gospel is good news to everyone whether they receive it that way or not.

So, what about all of the Bible passages that Calvinists use to make a case for predestination? That will be the subject of the future parts to this post.

paul

An AI Overview gives us a good definition of Metaphysics, it is the foundational branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being. Metaphysics has several different fields of study that all contribute to the comprehensive idea of metaphysics. One is Ontology, the study of reality and how it is perceived by mankind, while the study of man is Anthropology.

Hence, activities in the world are all driven by the prevailing presuppositions concerning mankind. In other words, because ideology drives all human action, what people believe about people determines the activities we experience in our world, and is documented as history.  

America is an idea that turned world history upside-down. Until America shows up in the 18^th century, the prevailing metaphysic concerning mankind follows: humanity is unable, and with that comes the supposed paramount problem with humanity; man does not know he is unable and doesn’t really understand reality. Therefore, mankind must be ruled by overseers that understand the inability of man, and through this rule can reduce evil in the world as much as possible. For the most part, these overseers were religious authorities.

But, there has always been a primary problem: disagreement between various and sundry overseers about the best way to control mankind based on different philosophies, and in most cases, the most powerful god. This disagreement is the source of ALL wars.

America came along and said, No, mankind is able. No, mankind is able to understand reality. No, the sole purpose of mankind is not to support governments or religions that rule over mankind, but rather, the sole purpose of governments is to enable people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Until this idea came along and took root, the world was dominated by religious wars such as The Crusades. Governments were primarily controlled by religious authorities and their competing beliefs that their god was the best hope for the world. And since the survival of mankind is at stake, these were beliefs worth fighting over.

Hence,  America’s separation of church and state. Yes, all people should be free to worship and follow the god of their choosing as part of their right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the god of their choosing does not have the right to rule over others regardless of the dogmatic belief that their god is the only hope for the world. Therefore, after the birth of America and its outrageous idea of Individual Self-Rule, religious wars all but vanished from history. However, the inability of man doctrine dies hard, and Communism filled the void in the 18^th century.

With all of this being said, lesser religious crusades will always take place. Many well-meaning Christians, as well as Muslims, believe that America would be much better off if they ruled over the American populous via their god’s doctrine, and pursue such goals politically. Of course, this is a rule by opiniated proxy until the god of their choice actually shows up.

Nevertheless, we must talk about a god who has, apparently, already taken control of American culture and its followers are incredulous that many have not received the memo. We are talking about the Cellphone god.

First, let’s examine the Cellphone god. The Cellphone god followers display devotion that Jesus and Alah can only dream of. Statistics tell us that Cellphone god followers check in with him, on average, every 5 minutes. And engagement time? Cellphone followers spend at least 6 hours a day intently focused on Cellphone’s illumined face, while the average American parent spends 1-3 hours a day with their children, while also engaging with Cellphone every 5 minutes. This devotion is only surpassed by followers of Moloch who sacrificed their children outright. And Cellphone gives new meaning to one’s god being “with them,” as you can bet Cellphone is always with his followers at any moment during the day.

But, the devotion doesn’t stop there. Studies show that followers of Cellphone sacrifice a significant amount of cognitive ability by passively receiving constant information that requires little, or no critical thinking. Studies show that this results in a reduction of cognitive capacity, focus, and memory. Furthermore, followers sacrifice sleep because the illumination of Cellphone’s glorious face effects melatonin and results in insomnia to various degrees. Indeed, no followers of any god are more willing to take up their cross and follow Cellphone daily.

Historically, Cellphone arrived in America circa 2000 through missionaries like The Church of Motorola. Before then, we can only assume that American culture was worse than the Dark Ages, as set against the dire need for Cellphone in our day. Virtually no one can imagine life without him. History documents the dearth of people being ignored in lieu of gazing into the glorious face of Cellphone.

So, what effect has Cellphone had on healthcare? Does any corner of American culture dare to be more important than Cellphone?

In the early days, indeed, the healthcare community discriminated against Cellphone followers. Hence, a crusade was necessary, primarily led by Gen Z. Shockingly, especially in Long-Term care (LTC), healthcare workers were forced to be separated from Cellphone for as long as 12 hours, while only being allowed to engage with Cellphone on 15-minute breaks and 30-60 minutes during lunch. A fierce crusade soon followed, and the reasoning for this discrimination by LTC was rejected with prejudice.

LTC facilities argued that engagement with Cellphone during care circumvented therapeutic communication and safety. One consideration under therapeutic communication touted by the LTC infidels was the idea that engaging with Cellphone, while also engaging with a LTC resident, was not active listening, which is an element of therapeutic communication. In addition, the LTC infidels suggested that Cellphone distraction was a safety issue and presented temptation towards Hippa violations. Also, engaging with Cellphone during care presents the appearance of diminished concern for the resident. In other words, Cellphone is more important, or equally important as set against the care for others.

Whatever the reasons were, LTC administrators and Directors of Nursing were conquered by the crusade in a relatively short time, but vestiges of conflict still remain where care is not compromised. Like the Japanese soldiers isolated on islands in the Pacific during WWII and did not receive the news that the war had ended, some in healthcare today have not received the memo, and will suffer the wrath of Gen Z.

This is because no human being, even those under our care, are more important than Cellphone. He alone is worthy of all altruistic sacrifices.

Paul M. Dohse, RN