Yes, it's the Full Armor of Calvinism. Equip this (go to your subscreen) that ye may withstand all arguments against your position regardless of their validity. This impenetrable ensemble includes:
The Helmet of Dogmatism - This quintessential for the quixotic merely bears a superficial resemblence to an old-style barber's basin. It's actually the helmet of the one true gospel in its purest and most undefiled form (we call it Calvinism for short). This headpiece for the headstrong is useful for shouting down people who disagree with you, making sweeping claims that can't be backed up by history, and charging the looming windmills of that dreadful distortion of the truth, Arminianism.
The Breastplate of Grandiosity - You always sound more authoritative when you throw around terms like 'immutable counsel' and 'glorious doctrines of grace.' Half of the battle is in showing that you and your theology are both intelligent and biblically grounded, while your opponent, by virtue of disagreeing with you, is a raving scatterbrain. Historically, the most effective means to show Calvinist intellectual refinement has been to:
1. Announce that your doctrine is the one true biblical view of salvation
2. Doing your best impression of puritanical style, assert in far many more words than are necessary that anyone who opposes Reformed Theology is a pernicious villain that hates the gospel
3. Accuse your opponent of harboring some extremely bad and highly improbable motive, such as worshiping free will or something. While he probably doesn't actually pay obesience to his own power of volition, accuracy isn't crucial in this step.
4. Join the shrill chorus of the Synod of Dordt in rightly condemning such dissidents as the heretical scum they are for opposing the doctrines of the glorious Reformation (be sure to use the word 'glorious' in conjunction with 'Reformation' as often as possible).
5. If your opponent shows a better command of the scriptures and/or facts than you do, scream louder and start throwing fece-- *AHEM* start drawing correlations between him and the heretical Galatians or Pelagians, say that he is kicking against the goads and having spiritual myopia, accuse him fighting the truth, and other vague allegations that you can yank out of their scriptural context and toss at him in place of actually proving anything.
Some might call such tactics 'poisoning the well,' but rest assured that even if it is, his non-Calvinist doctrine is already sufficienty poisonous, and you therefore at least do him no harm. Which brings us to,
The Belt of Equivocation - Pioneered by the early Scotch Presbyterians, this is a useful defense mechanism when people start to find internal difficulties with your beliefs. So when they ask why you don't believe in free will despite the fact that the Bible uses the term several times, have a quick belt of equivocation: "Sure the will is free just as the Bible says. It's free to act exactly the way God irresistably predestinated it to." Equivocation is also useful for Calvinizing terms like, 'apostate,' 'call,' 'grace,' and 'foreknowledge.' Backed in a corner? Frustrated by opposing views? Clear your head with a nice belt of equivocation, it'll put you back in good spirits, and as far as helping make the case for your theology, it's better than 100% proof!
The Shield of Doublethink - One problem with equivocation is that even you start to see through it eventually, which is why every good Calvinist should arm his/her self with the 1/8" thick plexiglass shield of doublethink. Those Synergists and their logical dilemnas! Now you can simply shrug off the fact that you hold two or more mutually exclusive ideas while wondering why your opponents can't see the obvious truth that you're presenting about the problems that their beliefs hold. Like if they ask you,
Non-Calvinist: "But if God ordained every event in history, wouldn't that make Him the author of sin as well?"
Calvinist: "No. You see, it's a mystery..."
But since we can now double-think, appeal to mystery is okay for you, whereas your opponent must now have logical consistency to your satisfaction, so you could shoot back with: "How could God know the future if He didn't ordain it? What if man just changed his mind at the last minute?"
The Shoes of Indoctrination - These gargantuan galoshes from the Capone Collection give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "I shall not be moved." Just remember when dealing with difficult passages in the Bible to keep one thing in mind: Whatever it means, it can't be contradicting Calvinism. Once you have this premise fully ingrained in every fiber of your being, you'll be firmly cemented in Reformed Theology and unable to be swayed by any amount of contrary scriptural facts or intrinsic logical difficulties. While these shoes are a bit hard to move forward in, they do not render the wearer completely immobile: they are spring-loaded to allow jumping to conclusions.
The Sword of Hero Worship - Why go through all the trouble of reading scripture and prayerfully seeking the meaning of its message when so many guys who are obviously a lot smarter than you have already figured it out? You should read the Bible only in the light their studies and commentary to understand what it is really saying; that way you'll know where and how to inser-- I mean exegete Reformed Theology. To show your support, you should also put them on your lists of favorite books, write biographies lauding them as holy men among holy men and restorers of the true gospel, set up shrine websites featuring their caricatures with enough fanboy reverence to make a Catholic Trekkie nauseous, and wear shirts that say things like, "Jonathan Edwards is my Homeboy." If you keep reading them long enough, you'll soon believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a heterodox twit who is opposing every major writer in Christian history! Just remember: Every Bible scholar worth his salt has always been a Calvinist - MacArthur, Murray, Boettner, Pink, Toplady, Dabney.... Huh? What's a Molina? I've never heard of this so-called "William Lane Craig." "Pinnock?" Isn't that like some part on a bird? Justin who?
Copyright © 2005-2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission.
Disclaimer: For the record, as well as those with no sense of humor, this is in fact satire.
