Category Archives: satire

Only Paul [Satire]

What was the purpose and extent of the atonement?  Was it to merely make salvation possible for all and secure it for none?  Or was it to definitely secure salvation for Paul?  After setting aside man-centered thinking, it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus, and for Paul alone.

First, take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

This verse indisputably proves that Jesus died only for Paul.

It’s worth noting that some liberal theologians have referenced other passages in vain philosophical attempts to apply the atonement to others for whom it was not intended. These heretics fail to make an important distinction.  Ambiguous verses should always be interpreted in the light of more explicit verses. Galatians 2:20 clearly limits the scope of the atonement to only Paul.  Other less clear passages should be interpreted accordingly.  If Galatians 2:20 was the only verse that declared the extent of the atonement, the heretics might have a point. By God’s providence, it is not. Let’s study some additional passages.

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd purposed to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?

The text is clear.  The shepherd found and saved only one sheep.  He left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep had also been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

To make his point extra clear, Jesus repeats the account in Luke 15:4-6 (bold mine):

Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.”

One again, we see the shepherd saving only one sheep. He leaves the reprobate sheep in open country, puts the one sheep on his shoulders, and goes home.

Theologian James White gives additional insight on the use of the word sheep (bold mine):

“The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not…”

Before commenting on this quote, it is necessary to exegete White’s use of the term “sheep”. To the untrained mind, it appears that White is using the word “sheep” to refer to more than one person. That is not the case. In English the word “sheep” can be singular or it can be plural.  This is defined by the context in which the word is used.

Singular example:  Look! There is one sheep over there!
Plural example:  Look! There are a boat load of sheep over there! We must be in New Zealand!

Untrained and tradition entrenched readers do not often note this subtle distinction in the usage of the word “sheep”. Nor do the misguided plural atonement heretics who resort to man centered thinking over exegesis. White’s context is plain. When he uses the phrases “the sheep” and “the sheep of Christ”, he is referring to only one sheep. White does not use the term “boat load of sheep”, nor does he refer to New Zealand. He properly defines his context by singularly stating “the sheep” (which of course we know is Paul).

Enough with vain philosophy, let’s get back to God’s word and take a look at 1 Corinthians 9:24 (bold mine):

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

Again, Paul himself writes that only he will get the prize.

Another critical passage is Acts 9:3-7 (The Damascus Road story). In it we see with clarity that Jesus chose only Paul: (bold mine)

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”….the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

This passage indicates that only Paul heard Jesus’ voice and saw the light from heaven. The travelers with Paul heard the voice but did not see the light. Clearly the light wasn’t intended for them because they were reprobate. Of course they would be, they were not Paul.

Philosophical Arguments Proving Atonement for Paul:
Philosophy is usually evil, however, it may be used sparingly when it is girded by God’s word.   There are three philosophical possibilities for the extent of the atonement:
1) The atonement was for everyone
2) The atonement was for no one.
3) The atonement was for Paul.

We know that #1 is false, that is universalism. We know that #2 is false because Paul was saved. Option #3 is all that is left. The atonement was for Paul.

Common objections to Atonement for Paul:

Q: What about the many passages that speak about “the world”? Isn’t the world more than Paul?

A: In light of the explicit statements of Gal 2:20 and 1 Cor 9:24, it is clear that the ambiguous passages that refer to “world” are more accurately translated as “the world of the one elect person whose name is Paul”. Remember, ambiguous passages should always be interpreted in the context of explicit ones.

Q: But doesn’t Romans 1:16 state salvation is for both Greek and Jew? How can this be the one person Paul?

A: Quit imposing your own biased interpretation on the word. Read scripture and let it speak for itself. Paul easily answers this objection in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 “To the Jews I became like a Jew…To those not having the law I became like one not having the law…“ You see, Paul is both Jew and Greek. Romans 1:16 refers only to Paul.

Q: But what about Mark 10:45?  It says Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many.

A: Scholars are divided on the issue, but the most likely explanation is that Paul’s nickname was “Manny”.   The verse should be read as “ransom for Manny.”

Q: Okay, What about Mary, Jesus’ mother? She wasn’t Paul and yet the Bible says she was blessed.

A: What are you, some kind of closet Catholic? That line of reasoning always leads back to Rome.

Q: This whole system is not fair. If only Paul is saved, what about everyone else who perishes? This is a bum deal for everyone except Paul.

A: Paul anticipates your objection and addresses it in Romans 9:20 “Who are you oh man to talk back to God?.” In other words this may seem unfair from your man-centered view, but it is God’s sovereign choice to individually and effectually save Paul alone. This gives God more glory, and makes Paul’s salvation more valuable. Don’t talk back to God.

Q: I’m not talking back to God, I’m saying that your system unfairly distorts the character of God.

A: That’s because you’re depending on philosophy instead of scripture.  Besides, only one person usually wins the lottery too.  Do you complain about that? Sometimes no one wins the lottery and the jackpot grows even bigger. If everyone won the lottery it would dilute the value. For example if the jackpot was $1 million and 10 million people won it, they would each get only 10 cents. What a ripoff! The same principles apply to salvation. Paul hit the jackpot.

Q: But wasn’t it a waste of Jesus’ sacrifice to apply it only to Paul when it could have covered more?

A: Not at all, this was planned by divine decree before the creation of the world. Jesus blood was only intended for Paul, and it effectually secured Paul’s salvation. The atonement did not make salvation merely possible for Paul, it secured it.

Q: I don’t find this doctrine very motivating to preach the Gospel.

A: That is a straw man. Paul taught this doctrine, and he was very motivated. Besides, scripture commands us to preach the Gospel.

[Note: this post is an attempt at satire.  Any similarities to another theological system are entirely coincidental.  ;) This is also an updated version of a post I did a few years back.  You can find the original here.]

29 Comments

Filed under Calvinism, Election, limited atonement, satire

Stuff Liberal Christians Like (Satire)

The following is an attempt at humor about stuff liberal Christians (LCs) like. Sometimes I identify with the LC, so don’t take this too seriously.  And if it hits too close to home, here’s a post you might appreciate more: Stuff Young Calvinists Like.  Any similarities between the two lists are entirely coincidental. :)

Stuff Liberal Christians Like

Approved Media.  All LCs follow the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and NPR.  In that order. Following approved media indicates that you are an original thinker.  The Daily Show receives the highest honors.  It is watched religiously by all LCs, although they would object to the term “religious”  as used in that context.    It is preferable to watch approved media on your laptop rather than live on TV.   Watching TV indicates an addiction to entertainment,  plus the money used for your cable subscription could have been better spent on something worthwhile like fair trade coffee or Obama 2012.  It is considered acceptable to listen to NPR live, as long as you read the Huffington Post at the same time.  LCs also enjoy Bill Maher, but this requires a qualification.  LCs strongly approve of Maher’s vulgarity and his misogynistic treatment of conservative women, however, his blanket hatred of anything remotely deistic is a minor cause for concern.  If  you replace “remotely deistic” with “fundamentalist”, this concern goes away.  LCs also believe that you are a victim of propaganda if you like Fox News, Drudge, or Glenn Beck.  Only the narrow minded listen to one side of the story.

Being Authentic.  LCs place an extremely high priority on being authentic.  You prove you are authentic by getting a tattoo, refusing to listen to contemporary Christian music, and by shopping at a co-op instead of Walmart.

Drinking Alcohol to Relax.  If an LC asks what you do to relax, the correct answer is: “I like to have a glass of wine, and watch the Colbert Report online.”   Make sure to point out that you’re only drinking one glass, and take care to correctly pronounce “Colbert” in French.   They will smile and tell you that they prefer to drink light beer,  listen to NPR, and read Bishop Spong.  When it comes to relaxation, the correct answer always involves alcohol and approved media.  Frequent references to alcohol help LCs prove that they have thrown off the legalism of their parents.  This rule isn’t applicable to Catholic LCs.

Cursing Like a Sailor.  All LCs curse.  Dropping the F-bomb is a great way to parade one’s spirituality.   Swearing is also used as a way of indicating one’s strong commitment to social justice issues.  Thus it is important to swear only in the correct context.  Here are some examples:

*BLEEP* They canceled the curb side recycling program! [Correct usage]

*BLEEP* My power bill has doubled since last year! [Incorrect usage]

Notice how the correct example addresses a social justice issue.  That’s because curb side recycling impacts the poor, but rising power rates do not.

Barack Obama. LCs love Barack Obama. This is because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character.  Of course, an LC will not admit this up front.   If you ask an LC for specifics about what he likes about Obama, he will give you a disdainful look.  If that doesn’t shut down the discussion, he will scream something about WMD’s and the evils of a theocracy.    If you point out that Obama started several new Middle Eastern wars, and is spending your kid’s money today, he will accuse you of being a racist.

Rob Bell.  LCs love Rob Bell.  They particularity appreciate that he writes at a 5th grade reading level, in pithy one sentence paragraphs.   LCs have read all of Bell’s books, and will often trot out this fact to impress you.  What they neglect to mention is that it took them all of 15 minutes to read everything Bell has ever written, and that they did this while simultaneously listening to NPR.  While LCs like Bell, they detest Mars Hill.  LCs believe that all mega churches are evil.  An exception cannot be made for Bell, even if he does wear cool glasses.  LCs also despise the other Mars Hill run by Mark Driscoll, for obvious reasons.  Driscoll is the worst kind of species – a fundamentalist complementarian who also drinks and curses.  This messes up all of the LCs’ meta-narratives.

Palestine.  The LCs position on Palestine is best understood by addressing an uncomfortable demographic fact.  Most LCs are white.  LCs experience a lot of self-hate over being part of a privileged group, and wish that they were a non-Jewish minority instead.    LCs are always looking for ways to appear sympathetic to the plight of minorities (posting Facebook statuses is an excellent way) while at the same time taking great care to do nothing that might risk their own privileged status.  The easiest and most non-threatening way to accomplish this goal is by placing the blame on Israel for the Palestinian conflict.  If Israel would submit to Muslim control, all violence in the Middle East would end, and the world would become a peaceful place.  LCs are also irritated that Israel even exists, because it’s an indication that God keeps his promises, and that all that end times crap just might be true.

The Word “Progressive”.  LCs hate to be called liberal.  The word conjures up images of overweight gray-haired white male politicians from Massachusetts.  LCs prefer to be called “progressive”.  Don’t confuse the two terms.  Liberals take money from the rich.  Progressives make sure that no one gets rich.

The NRSV.  The NRSV is the preferred Bible translation for LCs.  It uses gender neutral language, Calvinists hate it, and you can get it with the apocrypha.  LCs haven’t actually read the apocrypha, but it’s important for them to have a Bible that contains it, as it gives evidence of their ecumenical spirit.

Important disclaimer: I’m 1/64 Cherokee. It’s very important for LCs to be aware of that fact, as it gives me carte blanche to write posts like this. :)

23 Comments

Filed under humor, satire

Killing Ants

When I was a kid I used to get a lot of enjoyment from killing ants. I loved to stir up their hills and stomp on them.  Sometimes I would burn the loathsome insects with a magnifying glass.  A favorite method of ant termination was to flood their hills with water. It was satisfying to watch them struggle and drown.

After starting a flood I would sometimes stick a twig in the water to let a few special ants out.  They weren’t special because of anything they had done, but because I chose to let them live.   It was always first necessary to terminate a massive numbers of ants before showing any mercy.  I needed to express my attribute of wrath, and the elect ants had to appreciate that they were living because of my good pleasure.

Keep in mind that all of the ants I killed had it coming.  Ants bite even when you command them not to.

You might wonder how the ants felt about all this?   They were no doubt in awe and reverence that I let  any of them live.  I could have killed them all, but instead I maximized my glory by letting a few of them live.  I could also make up whatever rules I felt like, because I had the power to.   If the ants didn’t like it, they could always talk to the heal of my shoe.

I had two wills regarding the ants. My revealed will was that I really loved the ants and didn’t want any of them to die.   My secret will was that I hated ants and wanted to kill them. If that seems paradoxical, that’s because it’s necessary to distinguish between what I wanted to have happen and what I willed to have happen.

If all this is still confusing, remember, the mind of a grade-schooler is a mystery.

[For those who are concerned, the ant sadism can be traced to two events. 1) In kindergarten I blundered into a rather large red ant hill. This did not work out too well for me. 2) When I was in fifth grade I read a short story called Leiningen Versus the Ants. Read that story and you will hate ants too.  It was providential that Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull had not yet been released, or NO ants would have survived.]

14 Comments

Filed under Calvinism, Election, satire

Arminian and Calvinist Christmas Cards

(This is a repost from last year. Merry Christmas!)

Arminian Christmas Card:

Calvinist Christmas Card:


12 Comments

Filed under satire

Worship Star

This is a pretty funny look inside the Christian music industry. Wesley even gets a kudo (no doubt because his name rhymes with “Presley”).

:)

4 Comments

Filed under Christian music, satire

A Quiz for Your Calvinist Friends

A little quiz for your Calvinist Friends. Inspired by the ever resourceful JC Thibodaux and by a Calvinist dude named Jay Banks. Enjoy.

Genesis 25:23 The LORD said to [Rebekah], “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

Q: What was in Rebekah’s womb?

A. Two nations and two peoples.
B. One elect person and one reprobate person.
C. Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic.

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Q: How much pleasure does the Sovereign Lord take in the death of the wicked?

A. No pleasure
B. Much pleasure
C. No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Q: Why didn’t Jesus gather up those in Jerusalem, when he longed to?

A. Because they were not willing.
B. This is a mystery.
C. Hello pea brain. Jesus was speaking of general chicks, not effectual chicks.

Luke 10:30-37 [The story of the good Samaritan – the priest and Levite “pass by” the traveler, the Samaritan stops and helps.]

Q: Which of these three do you think showed mercy?

A. The Samaritan. Go and do likewise.
B. The priest and the Levite showed mercy by passing by.
C. Each person showed a different kind of mercy. If all had stopped to help, the act of the Samaritan would have been diluted.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Q: God loves what?

A. The world
B. The elect.
C. His glory.

Q: Who will not perish?

A. Whoever believes in God’s only son.
B. Let me get back to you on that, I need to look up the answer on “Desiring God”.
C. Francis Schaeffer won’t perish, but his kid Franky was decreed to go off the deep end.

Acts 16:30,31 [The jailer] then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Q: What must I do to be saved?

A. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.
B. Win the divine lottery.
C. The jailer was a Pelagian.

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Q: Who does “all” refer to in this verse?

A. All
B. The elect
C. An unbiased reading of the text shows that the first all refers to everyone and the second all refers to only the elect.

1 Timothy 1:18,19 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.

Q: Paul says that some people have done what with their faith?

A. Some have shipwrecked their faith.
B. This is a hypothetical analogy with no real world application. It is merely used by God to ensure the perseverance of the elect.
C. Nice try. Obviously the ship was never floating in the first place.

1 Timothy 2:4 [God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Q: Who does God want to be saved?

A. All men
B. All men, but no women.
C. God really wants all men to be saved, but only in such a way that he damns most in order to maximize his glory.

1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

Q: How are the elect chosen?

A. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father.
B. If you were elect you would already know the answer to this question.
C. Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Q: Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for what and what?

A. Our sins and also for the sins of the whole world.
B. The sins of the elect, and also for the sins of the elect.
C. The correct word is “propitiation”. You show your Arminian tendencies by quoting from the NIV. Read the ESV, heretic.

BONUS ROUND!

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

Q: Which picture best depicts the above verse?

A. B.
C.

Add up your score:
2 points for every A
1 point for every B
0 points for every C

Score:
25+ points – Congrats! You are predestined to be an Arminian
20-24 points – You read a lot of Norm Geisler.
15-19 points – Old school Calvinist
10-14 points – Neo-Reformed
0-9 points – James White is your homie.

99 Comments

Filed under Arminianism, Calvinism, humor, quiz, satire

Frankenstein vs Calvinism

(Warning, this is pretty cheesy and is not meant to be taken seriously)

How many similarities are there between the story of Frankenstein and the theology of John Calvin? Let’s take a look…

Frankenstein – Start with completely dead corpse.
Calvinism – Check

Frankenstein – Corpse is zapped with lightning and brought to life.
Calvinism – Check

Frankenstein – Creator is self centered and has an ends justifies the means mentality.
Calvinism – Check

Frankenstein – Even after being zapped with lightning Frankenstein is still nothing more than a totally depraved monster.
Calvinism – Check

Frankenstein – Hunchbacked servant named Igor
Calvinism – Hunchback servant named Pierre

Frankenstein – “I am not a Frankenstein. I’m a Fronkensteen. Don’t give me that. I don’t believe in fate. And I won’t say it!…All right, you win. You win. I give. I’ll say it. I’ll say it. I’ll say it. DESTINY! DESTINY! NO ESCAPING THAT FOR ME! DESTINY! DESTINY! NO ESCAPING THAT FOR ME!”
Calvinism – Check

(That last one is a reference to Young Frankenstein)

2 Comments

Filed under Calvinism, satire

Stuff Young Calvinists Like (Satire)

[Update: If you enjoy this post, check out the following as well: Stuff Liberal Christians Like]

The following is an attempt at satire about stuff young Calvinists like. The idea came from this blog (which is funny but crass). Hopefully you will find this in good taste. :)

In most cases there is an obvious Arminian corollary. These are listed in italics.

The ESV translation: Young Calvinists (YCs) love the ESV. In certain circles its use is mandatory. The translation can easily be identified by the prominent circle on the front and/or on the binder. Since every YC uses the ESV, the “circle” has the nice side benefit of allowing them to easily identify each other when in unfamiliar environments.

The easiest way to explain why the ESV is preferred is by pointing out out the problems with all other Bible translations. The KJV is archaic. The NKJV is too much like the KJV. No one uses the NASB. The NIV and NLT are thought for thought translations (bad). The Living and The Message are paraphrases (really bad). The NRSV and TNIV use gender neutral language (really really bad). Special note: people who prefer the NRSV are invariably liberal (keep in mind that “liberal” and “Arminian” are synonymous term in the Calvinist mind). When in the presence of YCs it is wise to avoid all reference to the NRSV for reasons of safety.


The ESV is generally the only permitted translation for Calvinists; however, there is one notable exception: The NASB is considered acceptable if one is buying a MacArthur study Bible. In all other cases the NASB should be avoided in order to maintain conformity. It is a matter of great consternation among YCs that there is currently no ESV MacArthur study Bible.


Arminian Corollary: All Arminians use the NIV. If you catch an Arminian using a translation other than the NIV, this indicates that he intends to convert to another branch of Christianity. You can determine what branch based on the translation used. A few years ago there was an Arminian movement to migrate to the TNIV. This was singlehandedly shot down by James
Dobson.


Mars Hill Church:
YCs like Mars Hill because it is contemporary, hip, and Reformed. The first rule when discussing Mars Hill is to be aware that there are actually two of them. One is very cool. One is evil. To mix them up is a sign of terrible ignorance and is considered almost as bad as reading the NRSV. The cool Mars Hill is pastored by Mark Driscoll, and is located in Seattle. The evil Mars Hill is located near Grand Rapids. It is pastored by Rob Bell (The Emergent who produces the NOOMA series). It is excessively irritating to YCs that there is a successful Emergent mega-church in Mecca (Grand Rapids).

Arminian Corollary: Arminians like the evil Mars Hill.


Alcohol:
All YCs drink alcohol. Other Christians drink too, but alcohol has special significance among YCs. Most of them grew up in churches where drinking was frowned upon. Since YCs are invariably fundamentalists, it is important for them to be able to point to something that indisputably proves that they have thrown off the legalistic chains of their youth. Alcohol fills the role nicely.


Arminian Corollary: Young Arminians drink too, and for the same reasons.


Old Theologians:
YCs love old theologians. Their favorites include: Edwards, Owen, and Spurgeon (primarily because their works are written in English). All YCs own works from old theologians. They love to display them in their library. A special note of precaution here: It is better to not ask the YC specific questions about the classic works that he owns. This can create an embarrassing moment, because there is a good chance that he hasn’t read them. This is not intentional. When the YC bought the works he fully intended to read them, but then realized that wading through Owen and Edwards is quite difficult. Though rare, it is worse to ask a question to a YC who has actually read the classics. In that case you will get more than you bargained for, such as a dissertation on the merits of John Owen’s insight into penal substitution theory. It is always safer to merely notice the YC’s large library, and to comment on his excellent tastes.


Arminian Corollary: Arminians don’t know the names of any old theologians. If you ask an Arminian to name one, he will say “Billy Graham”. Like YCs, Arminians rarely read the books that they own.


John Piper:
John Piper is the “holy grail” of Calvinist authors. YCs own all of his books. In many cases his work is actually preferred over scripture (of course you will never get a YC to admit this). Unlike “old theologians”, YCs actually read Piper. In fact it is common to find YCs who have memorized large portions of his work. If you attempt to argue with a YC, there is a 100% chance that he will refer you to something written by Piper. If you have a good friendship with a YC, you have an excellent chance of receiving a Piper book for Christmas.


There is no Arminian corollary to John Piper. Arminians do own and memorize the “Left Behind” books.


Caedmon’s Call:
Caedmon’s Call is the preferred music group for all YCs. This is not because Caedmon’s Call has particularly outstanding music, but because the lyrics of their songs are discernibly Calvinist in nature. If you have a good friendship with a YC and don’t get a Piper book for Christmas, it is near certain that you will receive a Cadmon’s Call CD instead.

LACRAE: Caedmon’s call is very 08. Lacrae is now the preferred artist for all YCs. This is not because he has particularly outstanding music, but because the lyrics of his songs are discernibly Calvinist in nature. For white YC’s he is also the only rap artist that they can name, although they’ll be offended if you point this out. And no, DC Talk doesn’t count. If you have a good friendship with a YC and don’t get a Piper book for Christmas, it is near certain that you will receive a Lacrae CD instead.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians like Michael W Smith, because he sings about love and endorses books like “The Shack”. White Arminians can’t name any rap artists.

Second Generation Calvinists: Second generation Calvinists are highly esteemed because there are so few of them. Most children of Calvinists become either non-Calvinists (the Schaeffer route) or hyper-Calvinists (the Sproul route). If you happen to be a level headed second generation Calvinist, there are lots of YCs who want to pepper you with questions about how exciting it must have been growing up in a Reformed Church. You get extra points if you are from Michigan, have a Dutch sounding last name, or have spent time at L’Abri. If you happen to be a Calvinist of South African descent, you present a special situation. In this case the YC still desires to question you; however, he will be very discreet about it when in the presence of minorities.

There are no second generation Arminians. They invariably become liberal, or convert to another branch of Christianity.

The Word “Reformed”: YCs actually hate to be called Calvinists, due to the negative connotations associated with the word. They instead prefer to use the word “Reformed”. The term is less recognized, and when in mixed company it allows the YC to maintain the illusion that he is on the sly. If someone comments in passing that he enjoys “Reformed Theology”, this is code to tell you that he is a Calvinist. This is quite similar to a Mormon casually mentioning where he served his mission, and it is done with identical motives. The YC will be closely watching your response. Appropriate responses include: “That’s cool, what is your favorite John Piper book?” or “I am a huge fan of Caedmon’s Call.” If you ask what Reformed theology is, you will immediately be put on the YC’s list of Arminians to convert.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians hate to be called fundamentalist. They will spend 10 minutes explaining to you why they are not fundamentalist, even though they are. Arminians also will never admit that they are Arminians.


The Five Solas:
Among educated brethren YCs refer to themselves as adherents of the five solas. YCs prefer not to use the term TULIP. However, references to TULIP become necessary when indoctrinating non-Calvinists, as the unique distinctives of Calvinism are not readily apparent from the five solas. YCs always say the solas in the original Latin. This makes them feel smarter. When a YC is losing an argument, he will often shout out “SOLI DEO GLORIA!” YCs rarely refer to “sola fide” or “solus Christus” because they sound too Arminian. Much like the word “Reformed”, YCs frequently refer to the solas as part of an elaborate code language in an attempt to vet out other Christian’s knowledge of Calvinism.


Arminian Corollary: Arminians agree with the five solas, but usually don’t know what they are. Arminians sometimes refer to themselves as adherents of John 3:16, and will often hold entire conferences based on the verse.


Small Groups:
All YCs attend a small group. While small groups are by no means unique to Calvinism, YCs have particular reasons for attending them. Calvinist small groups have much in common with military boot camps. They are intended to indoctrinate and promote conformity. In mixed denominations where Calvinism is taught on the sly, small groups present the unique opportunity to indoctrinate with minimal oversight. It is also the desire of every YC to work for Desiring God or Crossway. Since this is not always a realistic goal, it is considered an acceptable fall back to lead a small group.

Arminian Corollary: Arminians host small groups primarily as a motivation to clean up their messy house. They rarely discuss theology, unless a YC has infiltrated the group. Typically the purpose of Arminian small groups is to discuss politics, watch football, and eat food.

32 Comments

Filed under Arminianism, Calvinism, satire

Sola Paul (satire)

In this post I would like to look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.

First, let’s take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.

It’s worth noting that some theologians have used other passages in a vain attempt to apply the atonement to others for whom it was not intended. These heretics fail to make an important distinction. Ambiguous verses should always be interpreted in the light of more explicit verses. Galatians 2:20 very clearly limits the scope of the atonement to Paul, and Paul alone. Other less clear passages should be interpreted accordingly.

If Galatians 2:20 was the only verse that dealt with the extent of the atonement, the heretics might have a point. Fortunately it is not. Let’s take a look at some other clear passages:

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?

This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

The same parable is presented in Luke 15:4-6 (bold mine):

Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’

One again, we see the shepherd saving only one sheep. He leaves the reprobate sheep in open country, puts the one sheep on his shoulders, and goes home.

Theologian James White gives additional insight on the use of the word sheep (bold mine):

“The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not…”

Before commenting on this quote, it is necessary to exegete White’s use of the term “sheep”. To the non-educated it may appear that he is using the word “sheep” to refer to more than one person. This is not the case. In English the word “sheep” can be singular or it can be plural. Here are some examples:

Singular example: Look! there is one sheep over there!
Plural example: Look! There are a boat load of sheep over there! We must be in New Zealand!

Non-English scholars do not often note this subtle distinction in the usage of the word “sheep”. Nor do the misguided plural atonement heretics who resort to man centered thinking instead of exegesis. White’s context is plain. When he uses the phrases “the sheep” and “the sheep of Christ”, he is referring to only one sheep. Never once does White say “boat load of sheep”, nor does he refer to New Zealand. He says only “the sheep” (which of course we know is Paul).

Now let’s get back to God’s word. Another important passage to look at is Acts 9:3-7 (The Damascus Road story). In it we see with crystal clarity that Jesus chose only Paul: (bold mine)

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”….the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

This passage indicates that only Paul heard Jesus’ voice and saw a light from heaven. The men with Paul heard the voice but did not see the light. The light was not for them, it was only for Paul. This proves that Paul’s fellow travelers were reprobate. Of course they would be, they were not Paul.

Philosophical Arguments on the Atonement for Paul:
There are only three philosophical arguments to be considered.
1) The atonement was for everyone
2) The atonement was for no one.
3) The atonement was for Paul.

We know that 1 is false, that is universalism. We know that 2 is false because Paul was saved. Option 3 is all we have left. The atonement was for Paul.

Common objections to Atonement for Paul:

Q: What about the many passages that speak about “the world”? Isn’t the world more than Paul?

A: In light of the explicit context of Galatians 2:20, it is clear that the ambiguous passages that refer to “world” are more accurately translated as “the world of the one elect person whose name is Paul”. Remember, ambiguous passages should always be interpreted in the context of explicit ones.

Q: But doesn’t Romans 1:16 state salvation is for both Greek and Jew? How can this be the one person Paul?

A: Quit imposing your own biased interpretation on the word. Read scripture and let it speak for itself. Paul easily answers this objection in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 To the Jews I became like a Jew…To those not having the law I became like one not having the law… You see, Paul is both Jew and Greek. Romans 1:16 refers only to Paul.

Q: What about Mary, Jesus mother? She wasn’t Paul and yet the Bible says she was blessed.

A: What are you, some kind of closet Catholic? Your line of thinking always leads back to Rome.

Q: This whole system is not fair. If only Paul is saved, what about everyone else who perishes? This is a bum deal for everyone except Paul.

A: Paul anticipates your objection and addresses it in Romans 9:20 “Who are you oh man to talk back to God?.” In other words this may seem unfair from your fallen human view, but it is God’s sovereign choice to individually and effectually save Paul and Paul alone. This gives God more glory, and makes Paul’s salvation more valuable. Don’t talk back to God.

Q: I’m not talking back to God, I’m saying that your system distorts the character of God.

A: You have an odd concept of fairness. Only one person usually wins the lottery too, but you don’t complain about that do you? Sometimes no one wins the lottery and this makes the jackpot even bigger. If everyone won the lottery it wouldn’t do anyone any good. For example if the jackpot was $1 million and 10 billion people won it, they would each only get 0.01 cents. What a ripoff! The same concept applies to salvation for Paul. He hit the jackpot.

Q: But wasn’t it a waste of Jesus blood to apply it only to Paul when it could have covered more?

A: Not at all, this was planned by divine decree before the creation of the world. Jesus blood was only intended for Paul, and it effectually secured Paul’s salvation. The atonement did not make salvation merely possible for Paul, it secured it.

Q: I don’t find this doctrine very motivating to preach the Gospel.

A: That is a straw man. Paul believed this and was very motivated. Besides, scripture commands us to preach the Gospel.

In conclusion, the extent of the atonement is very clear. Jesus death was for Paul, and Paul alone. We all need to throw aside our traditional biases and read scripture in the context that it was intended. Case closed.

22 Comments

Filed under limited atonement, satire

Calvinist Dictionary

A dictionary to help Arminians better understand Calvinist terminology.
(Don’t take this too seriously, this is meant in good fun)

All: The elect

Altar Call: An insult to God

Arminianism:
Man centered theology

Assurance:
hoping that you’re elect

Augustine:
The first church father.

Calvinism:
The gospel

Call (effectual):
to be irresistibly dragged

Call (general):
God’s justification to condemn the reprobate.

Catholicism: What Arminianism leads to.

Compatiblism:
We are free to do whatever the Potter decrees us to do.

Contradiction:
a mystery

Doctrines of Grace:
Term that helps illustrate how God has given us Calvinists superior insight. Usage example: “I was an Arminian before being illuminated by the Doctrines of Grace.”

Doris Day:
Singer of truth

To Draw:
To drag

Easy believism:
The false idea that you can believe in Jesus Christ and be saved. Can a rotten corpse believe? Nope, neither can you.

Eisegesis
: Any Arminian interpretation of a difficult passage (thanks Ben)

Emergent:
Synonymous with “heretic”, unless your name happens to be Mark Driscoll.

Esau:
Someone God hated, not for any reason though.

Everyone:
The elect

Exegesis:
Any interpretation by James White, after all he’s a Greek scholar.

faith (1):
Something that the elect are zapped with after regeneration.

faith
(2): A work that gives pride to Arminians.

Fatalism:
Nothing to see here, move along.

Faux Pas
: Coming to church with a Bible translation other than the ESV.

Finney, Charles:
Wicked man who ravaged the evangelical movement. (Really)

To Foreknow:
To decree or to love, absolutely nothing to do with knowing before.

Four Point Calvinist:
An Arminian

Frankenstein: Cool story about a dead monster that got zapped with lightning and then became alive. Great parallel to the way we are regenerated.

Free Will:
Something that can’t exist because it would make God helpless if true.

Glory:
Praise we give to God for anything wicked that has ever happened (except for the birth of Charles Finney).

God’s secret will:
To save a few and reprobate the rest (secret to Arminians but not to us).

God’s revealed will:
a mystery

Gospel of John:
anything by John Piper

Hebrews:
Skip this book and read the Gospel of John instead.

Hyper-Calvinists: Calvinists who care more about consistency than looking good.

Infralapsarianism:
See “Four Point Calvinist”.

Infant damnation:
Something that brings God glory.

James:
Book that Luther wanted thrown out of the canon.

Jesus Loves Me, This I Know:
Misleading children’s song.

Jesus Loves the Little Children: Another terrible song, obviously written by someone who didn’t take the time to do a proper exegesis of scripture.

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.

Kosmos:
Greek word that means “elect”.

The Living Bible:
I hope you’re joking.

Missions:
A complete waste of time, see “altar call” for more info.

Mystery:
The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.

NIV:
Word for thought translation is heresy.

Paul:
Author of Romans 9

Pelagian:
Name to call Arminians, extra points if they don’t know what it means.

Polemic Atheist:
Another name to call Arminians, good diversionary tactic when appealing to John Owen doesn’t work.

Preaching the Gospel:
Something God commands, but the reason why is a mystery.

Pride:
Something that works-based Arminians have in abundance, but we Calvinists don’t after being chosen by God.

Regeneration: See “Frankenstein”.

Reprobate:
Those whom God justly damns to maximize His glory.

Rick Warren:
worthless author, read something by John Gill instead.

The Road to Rome:
Where synergism always leads to.

Robot:
Don’t say that word!

Servetus:
A heretic who got what he deserved.

Shipwreck:
Misleading term, because the “ship” wasn’t really floating in the first place.

Sovereignty:
meticulous micromanagement

Supralapsarianism:
God orchestrated the fall for His glory, the central truth of scripture.

Wesley, John:
A false apostle of free will (not kidding)

Whitefield, George:
Wesley’s superior

Whosoever:
The elect

World:
The elect



50 Comments

Filed under Calvinism, humor, satire