All Tolerant Calvinists are Practical Liberals

what happens
if nothing gets done?

what got done at the cross?
if what happens with it
depends on our execution?

if we are the ones who make the exchange
and put our sins on him
and execute him?

Girardian (death not needed, sacrifice not needed by God) liberals say the cross only happened because we needed victims . I of course do not deny that we like to scapegoat people.

But even the liberal Girardian is saying that something good and necessary happened by us killing a victim

I say this instead— if we did it, then we did nothing. It was not decisive for anything, certainly not for the redemption of any sinner.

And before we get too high and mighty about liberals saying that, so that we forget the gospel and simply take sides with all the “conservatives” who oppose abortion of unborn victims, let us look at Arminian and Romanist conservatives who do still talk about “sacrifice”

The Arminians who sing “nothing but the blood” and “Jesus paid it all” oh so loudly, then tell us it depends on us to accept it.

Arminians don’t think anything happened either.

So why do we think possibly favorably about the “calvinists” who have definite atonement as their “shelf doctrine”? For the glory of Christ, we need to get real about this evil called Arminianism (yes, it’s ordained by God, and it’s evil)

All liberals deny that “mercy-seat” means propitiation (taking away God’s wrath)

They say this is like the Aztecs, paganism, trying to appease God by throwing virgins down into a fire hole (like one of the Raiders of the Lost Ark movies)

They say: God does not change in time from wrath to peace

They say: God does not need to be reconciled, sinners need to be reconciled so the cross is God’s apology to man, or at least “God letting us do it” God being a pacifist, taking it, not as in taking revenge but letting us take revenge on an innocent victim, ie, God Himself

But you don’t have to be a pacifist to be liberal
All liberals deny that God now has wrath on anybody.

Practical liberals downplay the significance of God’s wrath

All Arminians and tolerant Calvinists, no matter how much they talk about “hell”, are practical liberals, because they eliminate the significance of the imputation of sins to Christ and Christ’s death as God appeasing God for those sins.

Explore posts in the same categories: arminians, atonement

Tags: , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

5 Comments on “All Tolerant Calvinists are Practical Liberals”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    this is one version of Romans 6–shall we teach the five lies of Arminianism, in order to receive more grace

    D.M. Lloyd-Jones from “The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors”:

    “At this point I would make a comment, and put it in the form of a question. Is there not a real danger of our becoming guilty of a very subtle form of Arminianism if we maintain that correct doctrine and understanding are essential to our being used by the Spirit of God? It is sheer Arminianism to insist upon a true and correct understanding as being essential.

    The case of the young Harris disproves this. For eighteen months he was used in this mighty manner while still not merely confused, but actually wrong in his doctrine. The same, of course, is true in the case of John Wesley. I remember speaking once in the Anniversary at the Central Hall, Westminster. I said that I felt I was there to represent George Whitefield, and in discoursing a little on the difference between the theological standpoints of Whitefield and Wesley I made a remark which I repeat on this occasion.

    I said that John Wesley was to me the greatest proof of Calvinism. Why? Because in spite of his faulty thinking he was greatly used of God to preach the gospel and to convert souls! That is the ultimate proof of Calvinism – predestination and election. It certainly comes out quite clearly in the case of the young Howell Harris.”

    “I would sum up this section like this. One of the greatest proofs of the truth of the doctrines emphasized by Calvin, what is known as ‘Calvinism’ – though I have already said I do not like these terms – is John Wesley. He was a man who was saved in spite of his muddled and erroneous thinking. The grace of God saved him in spite of himself. That is Calvinist! If you say, as a Calvinist, that a man is saved by his understanding of doctrine you are denying Calvinism. He is not. We are all saved in spite of what we are in every respect. Thus it comes to pass that men who can be so muddled, because they bring in their own human reason, as John Wesley and others did, are saved men and Christians, as all of us are, because it is ‘all of the grace of God’ and in spite of us.”

  2. markmcculley Says:

    “insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss.”

    The accusing finger points back to the accuser. Though the Reformed faith in reality teaches that nobody can or will believe the gospel apart from the effectual call, Rishmawy accuses Reformed people of thinking the truth of the gospel will be obvious to the unregenerate.. Instead of looking to a supernatural work of God in our minds to know the truth, Rishmahy congratulates himself for
    reading a lot of books and doing a lot of hard work before he overcame the vestiges of creationism and dispensationalism and becoming “Reformed”

    Now he is showing what a great Christian be is by being judgmental and impatient with “insular” folks (thank god he’s not like them) and by being “gracious” toward the lazy people who won’t do the work he did or who simply don’t have the intellectual equipment he had….

    Let’s. Who’s the “us”?

    First, Rishmahy is defending the five Arminian points as a less consistent and less mature expression of the gospel.

    Second, Rishmahy views all evangelicals as Christians who will be more apt to listen to “us” if we agree up-front that we are all Christians. Liberalism is not Christianity, but liberals are Christians.

    Third, he sees the Reformed faith as fixated on artificially rigid doctrinal hair- splitting which sacrifices the lives of people on the altar of being right, or values winning an argument about “truth” over showing love.

    His conclusion: Roman Catholics and Arminians are true Christians who mean well and are a little confused, but confessional Reformed are mean people who don’t know that God’s grace is best seen when that grace is given to those who either deny grace or are ignorant of grace. Don’t ask and don’t tell and God’s grace will operate apart from knowledge….

    Rishmahy’s apologetic is Arminian in that it depends on human sovereignty to seek out and accept truth (or not). He has no thought of God’s effectual call. His strategy is one of divine dependence on the will of man for salvation and forgiveness and “growth”

    Whereas the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was necessitated out of the fact that salvation could not be gained by human work or righteousness (Isaiah 59:15-20; Galatians 2:21; Titus 3:5), Arminianism grounds salvation ultimately in the human sinner, asserting that God’s actions toward sinnners are indiscriminate and that the difference between those who belong to God and those who do not is not found in God, who treats all sinners the same but is found in the sinner’s free will.

    In the face of the biblical statements about the horrible judgment that fell on Christ and the purpose of this work on the cross to secure the salvation of his elect people, we must reject any idea that Arminianism is only another version of the gospel, or a less biblically consistent reading of the gospel. The transition from being evangelical to being Reformed is seen by this argument as a transition from one seat to another on the same bus.

    let me quote somebody mainline Reformed people like to quote. Bonhoeffer—there are some who, when they find out that the bus is going the wrong direction, walk toward the other end of the bus.,

    If the “Arminian” bus is headed for a fatal precipice, and I can see it as one who is “Reformed”, am I showing love to the people on the bus by smiling and waving, with some friendly “pre-evangelism”, after first assuring that all of “us” on the bus are going to the same place?

  3. markmcculley Says:

    Wittmer is very clear that he thinks that Christ did die for everybody. Wittmer is very very clear that he thinks that not everybody will be saved. Even though Wittmer is not at all clear about elect and non-elect, he does not tell us the point of Christ dying for those who will not be saved.

    What did Christ “really do”? If Christ died the same for those who will be saved as Christ died for those who won’t be saved, what in the end did Christ “really do” even for those who will be saved? Certainly Christ’s death was not decisive for salvation, but in what way does Wittmer think Christ really did anything for all sinners, as one step (needed along with others) to a rescue from His wrath?

    If God was going to change the hearts of some sinners, and cause them to be born again, and that was going to save them, why was it necessary for God the Father to give the Son to die? If the Son dies to take away wrath for everybody, but the wrath is not taken away, what did the Son’s death “really do”?

    Like most evangelicals, Wittmer has a “strings attached” gospel, a “however” gospel. Instead of telling the truth to everybody that God doesn’t love everybody, he thinks the responsibility of everybody depends on God having loved everybody and Christ having died for everybody.

  4. markmcculley Says:

    Luke 11: 14 Now Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Jesus a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges.

    20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME TO YOU. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his estate, his possessions are secure.[ 22 But when one STRONGER THAN HE attacks and overpowers him, he takes from him all his WEAPONS HE TRUSTED IN, and divides up his plunder. 23 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.

    Mark 9: 38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.” 39 “Don’t stop him,” said Jesus, “because there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name who can soon afterward speak evil of Me.40 For whoever is not against us is for us

    Mark 9: 38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone[j] driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.” 39 “Don’t stop him,” said Jesus, “because there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name who can soon afterward speak evil of Me.40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

  5. markmcculley Says:

    all it takes for evil people to win is for good people like us to be pacifists

    because the Muslims do not agree to the existence of the Jewish state, we must not agree with the existence of Muslims

    because we are sovereign, sometimes only killing can make the big difference

    overcome evil with evil, because there are always are only two sides. And if you begin to act like a Lenin in order to overcome Lenin, we will still know that you are not really Lenin but the good guys. And good guys like us are never patient. We have to hate the haters so that we can love the rest of US.

    Elie Wisel—We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: