H.O.O.E.Y. I wrote this essay quite a while back and recieved a lot of really great feedback (along with some not so great feedback) concerning it. Later, I mentioned it in one of my blogs, but didn't provide a link to it. Today, I recieved an e-mail asking why they couldn't find it here on Just This Side of Heresy and it dawned on me how representative a work it was to my ouvre. So here it is.

Total Depravity. Unconditional Election. Limited Atonement. Irresistible Grace. Perseverance of the Saints. These are the five theological terms used by Calvinists to describe, in brief, what they believe. Conveniently, it fits together to make the acronym T.U.L.I.P., which sounds nice and flowery, but does nothing more than hide the cruelty of the doctrine behind a bouquet of literacy. Some Calvinists have realized that these terms, especially the one about depravity, aren't exactly seeker-friendly, so they've sought out softer words. Choices abound, but in general, the words still jab like a red-hot poker. This begs the question, "If they're going to offend, why not just say what they mean?" Each of these five points has one word that's at least nine letters long. Unconditional, for example, is thirteen characters. For something as important as salvation, we need to cut through as much of the fat as possible. I propose a new acronym, one that both fits the Calvinist doctrines as a whole and also explains in layman's terms what they mean.

Handpicked: This one used to be called Unconditional Election, and was eleven letters longer in its original incarnation. Aristocracy would also be a fitting term if it just a bit shorter. In brief, Calvinists believe that God picks his children, without any input from them. You cannot seek to be saved, nor can you repent unless God allows you. Like an apple, there's only two ways off the tree: either you're handpicked, or you go down.

Once Saved, Always Saved: That's it. Many Calvinists already embrace this term, which makes this step an abbreviated one. You can't get much simpler than once saved, always saved.

Only for some: Limited Atonement, as this used to be called, meant that, when Christ died, it was only for a few people, and not everyone, as though grace were a physical object that, if left unclaimed, would float around in the ether as waste-grace. It's apparently also what God mean in John 3:16, when He used the word "whosoever.' Even though such a claim makes no sense, it shouldn't bother us, because we know God's ways are above ours.
Evil, through and through: This was called Total Depravity and was probably the most offensive of the five terms. The new name isn't any nicer, but this way, no one's wasting time trying to figure out what it means. It means that you're no good. Period.

You can't say no: When the Holy Spirit grabs you by the collar, you're not allowed or even able to resist Him. It fits back with point #1, that we're handpicked. You don't have a choice in the matter. You're just a machine.

Yes, that's right. H.O.O.E.Y. In my opinion, that's pretty much what it is. God gave it to us plain and simple: Live for Christ or die without him. The fact that we're told what to do implies we have a choice in the matter. All of these extra rules and regulations do nothing but plant hurdles between people and the Cross.

[Side Note:] After posting this, I found that a friend of mine, Remade Gold also made some excellent comments on God's sovereignty. The first is God's good and our good . The second is Sovereign Grace (part one). I want to urge you to check them out.

Friday, I got mad at my radio...

...because I was feeling generous and gave John MacArthur's Grace To You a chance. As many of you know, I have issues with MacArthur and his theological beliefs. But it's not only his beliefs that I get frustrated with. There's a bit of arrogance, quite a bit, that comes along when you start a statement with, "If you believe the bible..." or "All bible-believing Christians hold that..." I don't mean to say that we can't be certain in our beliefs. I do, however, think that it's very arrogant to take a stance that suggests there's nothing that we could have possibly overlooked. This is especially true of doctrines that were not in existence for the first 1600 years of Christian history.


I was, however, very pleased to hear the following words come from MacArthur's mouth:


"We have to be the first to the first to admit that our understanding of virtually everything is somehow warped and twisted and affected by our own sinfulness."


"[W]e cannot be wrestling with [the doctrine of election] intellectually as if there is going to be some answer in our reason."*


MacArthur is stating what many Calvinists have felt for years: election doesn't seem like the product of a loving God. Rather than explain this biblically, however, he groups it in with other biblical paradoxes (i.e. other Calvinist doctrines) and says not to try and understand them. This is an odd statement for a man who just said that all bible-believeing Christians should adopt Calvinism. I've said this before: we are humans, created in the image of God, Christians with the mind of Christ, and believers, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. If something seems unfair, it's probably because the whole of the Trinity is testifying to our spirit that it actually is unfair.

I have to stand with Doug Pagitt when he says, "I think [reading your bible] might give you a more full understanding of the gospel than the one perverted by the likes of John MacArthur. I do not say "perverted" lightly, either. I really think what he communicates is so distant from the message of the Bible that it is dangerously harmful to people."

~J



*The Doctrine of Election, Part 1 (Selected Scripture), John MacArthur

SATIRE: A Reason For Election (archived from newsletter, August 2007)

Let me give you a little background on the guy creating this newsletter: He was raised in a middle class family, attended a Wesleyan church, was enrolled and edukated in a Wesleyan school. I moved to the Bible Belt a year ago, and am now attending a non-Wesleyan, though very Arminian, church. I cannot bear Calvinist doctrines, though I do not call myself anti-Calvinist any more than I would call myself, as a Christian, anti-athiest. "Anti-" implies a response to something. I'm just naive enough to think that I could have come to my particular theological bent without ever having to refute Calvinism.

Lately, however, I've been thinking more and more about Unconditional Election. For those of you who are also theologically naive, or for those of you who have never read my essay on H.O.O.E.Y., Unconditional Election is the idea that God has handpicked a spiritual aristocracy to rule on who gets to Heaven and who doesn't. Some people are born for Heaven; some are born for Hell. I've come across dozens of reasons why God would work in such a fashion. Let me list a few reasons, with some commentary:

A. Election...So that those who get to go to Heaven feel extra special.
The reasoning behind this goes like this: If a teacher gave a piece of candy to every child in the class room, some would take it for granted. If she only gave it to a few, those would feel priviledged to recieve it. This ignores the fact that rewards are generally given to those who do well. Imagine your child coming home to tell you that the nasty old teacher gave out candy to some kids, but not yours. Would you tell them that that's okay because now some of those other kids feel better about getting candy? No. It's called favoritism and most people in civilized society know that it's wrong. More importantly, however, we're not just talking about a teacher that denies some kids candy. If we're honestl, we'll admit that we would also be talking about a Teacher that denies some kids candy, then lights them on fire. Forever.

B. Election...for God's pleasure.
In this country of ours, we have laws against parents who torture their children. In short, if we're supposed to be a Christian nation, and our Heavenly Father sends some of his children to burn forever, what right do we have to yell "foul" at those who do similar things to earthly children? I swear I'm getting to the satire part.

C. Election...because the alternative is "faith by works."
I won't take the time to explain this all here because I think I did it in a previous essay already, this month. But needless to say, "works" doesn't mean doing something, it indicates a pharisaical method of earning Heaven by holy rituals and good deeds.

All of these fall short, but while I was eating at Applebee's one Sunday afternoon, it dawned on me. The reason why we need election is so that we have heathens who will serve us our dinner on the Lord's Day, after the rest of us leave church. If, by some miracle of evangelism, all of the world was brought to the altar, where would we fellowship? Where else would we have the opportunity to leave Gospel tracts as tips?

With this blog, I finish Romans. I am progressing through my notes faster than I am reading through the bible, which means that, eventually, you'll be getting these thoughts in real-time. How exciting for you.

10: 9-10 Active belief is a requirement of salvation, but not a work ( Gal. 3:2,5,6)

10:10 Interesting how the bible uses the phrase "believe with your heart." Whenever we believe, whatever we believe, the work is done within our brain. There is no thought in our heart, only action. Belief, by the heart, is belief-in-action.

11:7-11 Here, Paul talks about those who have hardened their hearts as though it's an exceptional phenomena, and something that happens infrequently. It's not suggestive of the idea that everyone who rejects Christ was forced into that corner. Verse 11 expands to show that such forced stumbling or blindness was not necessarily a permanent condition.

11:14 Paul indicates that his efforts could bring about a decision in the hearts of his fellow Jews, indicating that man's actions (though not personal works) can have a direct effect on a person's eternal situation, leaving no room for a master list theology.

11:20-21 Paul speaks of branches that are grafted in, but can be broken off (because of unbelief). He personalizes the branches as "you." He consistently uses grafted branches as a metaphor for Gentile Christians, and natural branches as a metaphor for Jews.

11:26 This is another instance of God, in the Old Testament, referring to a race by the name of their common patriarch.

11:28 "Elect" are the Jews.

12:6-8 Raised as a Wesleyan, these were the "official" gifts listed by our denomination. The Spiritual Gifts listed in I Corinthians were not excluded, but were less focused upon in some congregations.

13:1-3 This verse gives one reason why, despite the common-sense answer of bad things happening to bad things is good , blowing up abortion clinics (for example) is wrong. Also under this catagory fall prohibitions (in America, at least) of underage drinking and smoking.

13:11 As in Matthew 10:22, salvation is a term that addresses our rescue from this sinful world and Hell, not our status as a born-again believer. Paul states, to believers, that salvation is coming.

14:2-8 Meat sacrificed to idols is a real-life illustration for us and a dire situation for first-century Christians. It tells us that we should not cause our brother to stumble over their weaknesses, even if their weakness is not our own conscience rejects. The implication, therefore, is that something may be a sin for one man, but not another, so long as the bible give no strict prohibition of it. The difference between one man and another, as applies here, lies within the mind.

14:17-18 Living rightly (righteously, peacefully, and joyfully) will give you the approval of man, and not necessarily martyrdom.

15:30-31 Paul understands the need for prayer from our fellow brethern.

16:1 Phoebe is a "servant" translated from the Greek word from which we get "deacon," yet she was a woman. The same qualifications (I Tim. 3:1-7) that apply to a deacon like Phoebe apply to a pastor or leader.

16:10 It is possible to know whether a person is actually saved or not, since Paul notes that this knowledge came because Apelles had been "tested and approved" and not something that the Lord told him.

16:13 Rufus is the son of Simeon, probably the same that carried the cross of Christ, and was, therefore, present at the crucifixion. His name means "red," unusual for a Jew.

To begin I Corinthians, click HERE.

Tonight, in an attempt to catch up to my current place in the Bible, I'm listing three more chapters from Romans (6-9). I hope you can gain something from them. Since my main point was to post this transcription of my notes, I won't say anymore. Here goes:

6:11-12 Being dead to sin is a command, not an automatic effect of being born-again.

7:10 Commandments which were meant to bring life, brough Paul death-by-resctriction, much like Adam.

8:1 No condemnation for those who are in Christ. The word "in" is indicative of a present condition, not a former one.

8:24 We hope for what we do not have, and for what is to come. We hope to be saved. The terms "salvation" and "saved" actually refer to our presence in Heaven, and is
different from being born-again, which is what we are here, on earth.

8:29 "Predestined," throughout the earliest years of Christianity, extending up until the 1600's, was never defined as being inalterable. It meant only that by being in Christ, our place was reserved in Heaven.

8:35 Nothing can separate us from Christ's love. In contradiction to those that believe in universal salvation, love is not equal to salvation.

9:10-12 culminate with Paul's quotation of Obediah 6, "Esau I hated."Throughout the Old Testament, various prophetic speakers used the terms Jacob and Esau to reference the kingdom/ethnic group that came from them.Obediah, specifically, is one of these. It had nothing to do with thebrother's themselves.

9:17 is referring to Pharaoh, is not considering the emperor's eternal destiny, but his lot in life. God raised him up, never spiritually, but in earthly matters. His destruction was an example of God's manipulation of governments, in order to bring about a specific future. Pharaoh, had he granted the Jews their freedom, could have watched them leave his gates and said to himself (and worse, to his kingdom) "Look at those Israelites. Their God didn't deliver them. If I weren't so merciful, they would still be our slaves." For this condition of his heart, God punished him by tying Pharaoh's irrespective attitude to his actions.

9:20 is an interesting passage in that it defies the axiom that no apocryphal books are quoted in the New Testament. This verse quotes directly from Wisdom 15:7 which, while sounding very much like Jeremiah 18:4, and maybe originating from it, has a different perspective. In context, the book is talking about those who, rather than make vessels, are creating idols. The following verse, 15:8, makes an additional comment that puts the blame for such a lewd creation on the maker of the idol. Unintentionally, the author has made a telling comment about the concept of election: if God has made a man evil, then God, the creator is to blame for it, not the creation.

9:19-21 end with another Old Testament quotation: Jeremiah 18:4. Prophetically, Jeremiah was expounding on God's plan to eventually include the Gentiles in his plan for reconciliation with God. Paul, a former Pharisee, would have known this and not taken the verse out of context.

9:30 and onward is Paul's anticipated answer to those who say that, because the Jews (as a whole) are not, in the end, the sole recipients of grace, then God's prophecies are void. Paul explains that the Jews who try to relate to God by the Law, rather than faith, are in unbelief and therefore, not righteous.

As a side note, I began reading Greathouse's book, From The Apostles to Wesley: Christian Perfection in Historical Perspective. Thus far, it's been extremely enlightening. Greathouse, former general superintendent of the Church of the Nazarene, breaks down the definitions into explanations everyone can understand. He proves the pedigree of the doctrine of sanctification, throughout church history.

To continue with Romans 10-16, click HERE.