- The Philosophical argument
- History of Calvinism and predestination
- Calvinism and Preterism: Two incompatible worldviews

The Question of Personal Identity

When I started studying philosophy, I ran across a poem by Elizabeth Bishop which was presented to us during a philosophical debate. Poetry is not my first choice for communicating abstract concepts; however this particular powerful poem struck me and stuck with me ever since; so much so that I still have my very first philosophy textbook in my library.

In the poem, “In the Waiting Room,” Elizabeth Bishop remembered a visit to the dentist on a winter day in 1918. She describes the time when she became aware of herself as a self:

I said to myself: three days
and you'll be seven years old.
I was saying it to stop
the sensation of falling off
the round, turning world
into cold, blue-black space.
But I felt: you are an I,
you are an Elizabeth,
you are one of them.
Why should you be one, too?
I scarcely dared to look
to see what it was I was.
I gave a sidelong glance
--I couldn't see any higher--
at shadowy gray knees,
trousers and skirts and boots
and different pairs of hands
lying under the lamps.
I knew that nothing stranger
had ever happened, that nothing
stranger could ever happen.
Why should I be my aunt,
or me, or anyone
What similarities--
boots, hands, the family voice
I felt in my throat...
held us all together
or made us all just one? - Elizabeth Bishop, In the waiting room

What this poem describes is something all humans experience at some point in their lives: the sudden realization that each of us is an I, an independent self. This is an awesome, amazing and powerful realization, which can bring tears to my eyes and feelings of amazement and of giving glory to God for finding it necessary to give me, the lowly me, a sense of self. And this process of self-realization underlines one of the most awesome characteristics of God, and therefore of mankind. Self-consciousness and personal identity is what gives man the ability to refer to himself as “I” or “me.” This is consistent with God's repeated use of the phrase “I am” when describing who he is and is consistent with God naming the first man Adam, setting him apart from the rest of the creation. This self-identity provided by God is instilled in Adam's descendants to this day. We all as humans have a strong sense of identity which we both use as a platform for our environment (so that we view ourselves as having distinct identities, separating us from everything and everyone else) and as a means to identify ourselves for the rest of eternity, set aside our good and bad memories, moments of happiness and sadness, love, dreams and creative times when we know God's glory is being magnified through our actions. It is this process of self-awareness and self-identification that is being denied by Calvinism and by supporters of predestination. Also note that the self in this context is unrelated to the human soul and the two concepts are entirely different.

When an architect creates a building, the most important step in the building process is the architect's projection of himself into the building. The building first exists in the mind of the architect as an abstract, concrete model of the reality of the building. Nonetheless, this model is very important in the creation of the building itself. The modeling step of the creative process is key to identifying the creator and his relation to the creation. In fact, by projecting their personal identity over their creation, authors and creators can be identified by outsiders as distinctive individuals. This is how one can visit a museum, point to a painting and say, “This is a Monet,” or “This is a Van Gogh.” And this is how experts in architecture can point to a building and say “this building is in so-and-so style.” In essence, Monet and Van Gogh, through their paintings clearly are expressing one thing: “This is who I am.” This is possible because the creator had one important characteristic: a sense of self and of personal identity which clearly and undeniably separated himself from everyone else before him and after him. Throughout the ages, people have been able to create things which personified their memories, dreams, intentions, feelings, wishes and desires, which all sum up the I am.

The Question of Self-Transcendence

Since the “I am” statement appears to be a sum of everything that one is as a human being, it would only be natural for me to look at all the “I ams” out there and compare them with my “I am.” The amazing thing about our individualism is that although we are for now physical beings confined by both time and space, it seems as if God gave us the ability to rise above time and space and transcend whatever present reality we experience. We do this for example by creating memories, displaying and having children. The time gone by is kept alive by memories, and after our passing away we continue to project our self onto our children, friends and family. Of course as Christians we believe that we continue to exist after death into a spiritual body, and even though the physical body dies, our sense of identity transcends even death and continues on for eternity.

Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Both men died and went to Hades, the rich into a place of torment, and Lazarus into a place of comfort. Both men were able to recognize each other. Although it is beyond our understanding of how this is possible, the sense of “I am” was strongly projected by both men even though their physical bodies were dead. We can therefore deduce from the parable that our sense of self has very little to do with the physical environment, and it has a lot to do with the unseen part of the human body, although one's soul, as Jesus showed in His parable still has a sense of self, therefore the soul and self should not be confused or used interchangeably.

Is it not true that as I previously showed, everything which was ever created first existed inside one's mind? Is it not true that even the universe, planet Earth and mankind first existed in the mind of God? Indeed, is it then not true that the ultimate display of “I am” is God creating man with a self-identity and the ability to transcend the physical environment by man himself saying “I am?” Would it then be harder for God to create a physical hunk of flesh and breathe life into it, or a being able to look at himself, identify himself from the rest of creation and say “I am?” I certainly hope I am not the only one seeing the vastly superior glory of God being displayed in a self-aware and free creation, rather than a creation already predisposed to be for or against God.

The sense of self-transcendence which I believe God instilled into us is also expressed by projecting our sense of individualism onto our children, families and society. Note that God deemed it necessary for Adam to have a mate. I do not wish to get into the communal importance of the “we are” societal identity, however I do want to point out that the strongly Calvinist churches of America who put so much emphasis on predestination are miserable failures when it comes to projecting a Christian sense of self onto the society.

One's sense of self can of course be affected by what he thinks. Fatalism is a strong characteristic of the American church, and as a result, self-fulfilled prophecies are causing Christians across the world to suffer both physically and spiritually, and I believe that the inability of Christians today to overcome a fatalistic worldview is based partially in the wide-spread of Calvinism.

Note how all points of the TULIP Calvinism have a negative aspect in one way or another:

Total depravity, or total inability and original sin – is a distortion of the fall, the curse, and today's world.

Unconditional Election – it automatically creates a concept of “others” which are viewed as evil outsiders, as profane individuals unworthy of God's love or election.

Limited atonement – it teaches that Christ only died for the elect and no one else.

Irresistible grace – the elect cannot resist the grace of God and have no choice in rejecting God.

Perseverance of the saints – it is impossible to lose your salvation. Nothing you can do can separate you from God.

Note the negativism in each point listed above, and note how each point in fact revolves around the rejection of a sense of self and personal identity. The TULIP points in Calvinism destroy the God-created distinctiveness in each of us, distinctiveness meant to separate us from the rest of the creation and ultimately glorify the Creator by giving us the freedom to make the choices He would want us to make, or reject the choices He would want us to make. The TULIP negativism projects both a Creator getting a sense of identity by forcefully manipulating his creation, and an imperfect, miserable and choice-less world heading for an inevitable end. Does this not sound familiar? Is this not the perfect excuse for Christians to avoid interaction with the world and ultimately create a sense of “we are?” Is TULIP Calvinism in fact not a direct contradiction of the Preterist position on the Kingdom of God ultimately encompassing the entire world, just like the stone in Daniel grew to a mountain encompassing the entire earth? Is TULIP Calvinism also not a contradiction of Revelation 11.15 which teaches us Preterists that “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ?” The negativism promoted by the TULIP Calvinism is simply inconsistent with the “I am” and “we are” sense of individual and social sense of awareness promoted by Preterism today.

As Preterists we understand that while we continue to experience what we perceive as negative events in our lives, with God, we have the ability to transcend negativism and magnify the glory of God in our lives and in the world. Without a sense of personal identity and individualism, we would be unable to overcome the world, and there would be no glory given to God when negative events become overwhelmingly positive, and when seemingly impossible things become reality.

The Question of Privacy

When we discuss the etymology of the word “person” we know that it is rooted in the two Latin words sonare, which means “to give a sound” and per, which means “through.” These two words give us the understanding that a person is one who “speaks through” as usually referred to in regards to Greek theatre actors who used masks to disguise their identities during a play. One would be hard pressed to find a more clear picture and description of a “person.” As individual beings going by through our lives, we use language to communicate our self to others and also hide our self from others. No matter how hard we try to project or hide ourselves we will fail, and something will always remain hidden inside our being.

What is fascinating about the question of privacy is that it also applies to God, probably because we were made in His image. In the deepest corners of our souls, mankind is “incommunicable.” There is a very real sense in which we are all alone and will always be alone in the world, be it in the midst of a crowd, or in the midst of the ocean. We simply know that we have a very exceptional relationship with ourselves, in that we know things about ourselves that no other man knows or will ever know. In the same manner, it is impossible for us to know the souls of other men and their secrets and desires. So then we can reasonably argue that we are free to choose the level of self we choose to reveal to the world around us, and perhaps even to God, unless of course God chooses to look for himself inside our hearts, which He can freely do. However, note how God related to Adam and Eve after they sinned against Him. He did not actively intrude into their lives, rather He asked “Where are you?” and requested an explanation for their actions.

Another noteworthy comment to be made is the insistence of today's Christians, who are mostly futurists, on the physical aspects of the Kingdom of God. I am convinced that these physical expectations are the ultimate cause of misunderstanding the necessity of humanity's self, and its existence.

You see, futurists today expect a physical, public and overwhelmingly extravagant coming of Christ – this physical event being tied directly into the senses of perception of the human body. The problem with this approach is that we know as Preterists that the Kingdom is not of this world, i.e. It cannot be detected with the four senses of the body. In the same manner, one cannot detect the existence of the self as if detecting a physical object. We can then deduce that our sense of self, as shown previously, is “made” of the same “stuff” of which the Kingdom of God is made, the stuff of the spiritual realm, and denying the existence of the self, is as if denying the existence of the Kingdom of God and its spiritual nature. Our sense of self is as real as the Kingdom of God, it can transcend time and space, it can transcend the negative world view created by futuristic Calvinism and it can provide real hope for salvation and a sense of self and worthiness to ALL mankind for eternity.

The Denial of Self

Interestingly enough, Buddhism also denies the self. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to eliminate the self entirely and eliminate the existence of anything permanent like “the soul” or “the self” aiming to ultimately integrate all the senses of the body into the environment and find The Way through the extinction of the self and the unification with nature and the universe. Note the exclusive focus on the physical and bodily senses of perception.

David Hume also was one of the western philosophers denying the existence of the self, or at least attempting to explain it away as being related to the senses:

“When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perceptions.” - David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, 534.

This ties nicely into the early church tendencies of self-denial, and punishment of the self. Because of the predisposition to believing in an active and victorious Satan in the world, some early Christians became monks (Martin Luther included) and lived lives of self-denial, attempting to defeat Satan and the desires of their bodies through physical punishment and self-inflicted pain. This is a sense of denying the self which has made it into the present, although most modern Calvinists want to have their cake and eat it too: recognize the total depravity of the world, but enjoy the full benefits of living in a free country such as the United States for example.

With this in mind, recall the very first point of the TULIP Calvinism: total depravity. What a striking similarity between heathens and Buddhists focusing entirely on their bodily senses to perceive physical reality, and the core concept of Calvinism which teaches that all creation is depraved and corrupt, thus giving someone a lens through which a distorted view of the world is presented. American Christians cannot continue to cry for freedom of religion and individual rights while teaching that everything has already been ordained one way or another. Their actions do not match their theology.

Conclusion

Because predestination and election deny the concept of self, and because Calvinism establishes a premise of a totally corrupt physical creation, it must be rejected by Preterists. Since we now understand the nature of Death occurring in Genesis 2, and since we understand the true nature of the curse, we can safely reject Calvinism together with all its points as just another piece of man-made doctrine which has no place in one’s heart. It is understandable why futurists would want to adopt Calvinism in the context of their eschatology, but there is no sense in Preterists teaching and adopting it, an especially making it into an issue of salvation and fellowship. If recognizing the Parousia of Christ as past or future is not an issue of salvation and fellowship for Preterists, why would predestination and election divide us Preterists? Only a fool would use predestination and election to split believers and create controversy. If we as Preterists worship with futurists and do not make the Parousia of Christ an issue of salvation of fellowship, why then is predestination and election an issue?

A rejection of Calvinism does not imply by any means a rejection of God's sovereignty, and God's sovereignty is not associated exclusively with the doctrine of Calvinism. In fact, free-will Preterism strongly reinforces the absolute sovereignty of God. I do not serve a God that intrudes into my self and rips out my thoughts, feelings, and memories.

Only the Creator of the universe, true God Himself would be the one able to keep all His promises, fulfill all His prophecies and offer free salvation to everyone willing. Loving the unlovable sinner, touching the untouchable profane by becoming a Self, Individualized Man, and ultimately expanding the walls of the heavenly tabernacle from Hebrews 9 to encompass the whole world, multiplies the sovereignty of God infinitely more than the doctrine of predestination and election will ever do. As Preterists we know that we all can right now become more like Him, but we also understand that we all right now still are.

It is evident so far that Calvinism robs man of the God-given sense of self, and the sense of spiritual realities given to man by God. Is it not more glorious for God to love a being who already rejected Him than to love a being already predestined to heaven or hell? And was it not the love of the father magnified so much more when he let his son choose to care for pigs, and lovingly accepted him when his son chose to come back?

Note: I want to thank Dr. Gary Percesepe for his book on philosophy which influenced a lot of my thinking. This article was heavily based on his chapter titled The Self as Mind, Body and Machine from Philosophy, An Introduction to the Labor of Reason.