Confessions of a Former Calvinist: What This Means For Me

     So we have reached a time where I have been a Calvinist for several years, probably at least seven or eight years. I ended up giving up the title of Calvinist and altogether leaving this idea regarding the whole of it where I am not fully committed to each of what is known as the five points of Calvinism. This caused me to lose some friends and associates who seem to only want to associate or be with Reformed/Calvinist Christians as opposed to Reformed (Protestant) Christians. This has led others to also requesting what my particular reasons for this to be. My reasons are merely that in an agnostic sense, though not atheistic as I still do believe that Christian Theism is the only true and consistent form of theism that exists. If I get around to it, I will eventually write articles refuting and responding to other religions found in Theism. While this article will be short, it is to at least give forth what I believe are my reasons and convictions for the rejection of Calvinism.

    First, the reason of historicity would be the starting issue, meaning that there was hard to find a consistent form of Calvinistic soteriology in a single church father. As of becoming more richly indebted to Protestant history, I have learned to see the value of church history and the traditions of the church to understand how doctrine was dealt with. But as of studying the Early Church Fathers, I will find that several of the early church fathers adhered to a form of Calvinism in their writings. However, you will also find Arminianism in these very same fathers as well. So while pure Arminianism & Molinism have been absent in early church history, the same is said towards Calvinism. Some people might argue Augustine was the church father who invented Calvinism (though I would challenge this after trying to read more of Augustine for the first time). So it would just be that I am trying to look for an approach to my Christian faith which is historic as well as biblical.

    Second, the reason of scripture seems to support both the doctrine of events being predetermined while there also being a sense of free will. Furthermore, not just mere determined events or a concept of undetermined free will decisions, but even the concept of chance is involved as noted in 1 Samuel 6:7-9 when the priests were explaining how to send the Ark of the Lord back after giving offerings:

Now then, prepare one new cart and two milk cows that have never been yoked. Hitch the cows to the cart, but take their calves away and pen them up. Take the ark of the Lord, place it on the cart, and put the gold objects that you’re sending him as a guilt offering in a box beside the ark. Send it off and let it go its way. Then watch: If it goes up the road to its homeland toward Beth-shemesh, it is the Lord who has made this terrible trouble for us. However, if it doesn’t, we will know that it was not his hand that punished us—it was just something that happened to us by chance.”

    So we do find that there is a means in which there would be an expectation of "chance" involved, which is something that originally led me to pursue the Calvinist view of Compatibilism in light of viewing chance as something which is unpredictable and thus only God knows the outcome. In fact, this goes in mind with the casting of lots (dice) to see what God wants the outcome of an action to be. Yet, we see there is more than just this idea of God's hand being involved in this case as there does seem to b the comparison between moments God brings his hand involved and then there is "chance" involved which doesn't include mere undetermined free will options. So there is more that I must consider here.

    Third, my other reason should not be one which should be considered as a refutation or a major point against Calvinist. Anybody who would try to use this section or part to try to somehow slam dunk on the Calvinists would be foolish and erroneous to do so, which is probably not going to stop some people like Warren McGrew and Leighton Flowers from trying if they were wanting to be desperate (which I doubt that Dr. Flowers would stoop to that low of a tactic). The reason is simply this: The Calvinist Community soon became toxic and very divisive, even towards their own people. Calvinists were fine and calm with unity at first, but soon Reformed Baptists & Presbyterians were starting to make accusations of anathema over disagreements on modes of baptism. It eventually escalated when the question of the theonomy debate became important and then recently the debate over divine simplicity. I eventually was just tired of this pointless arguing and bickering as well as false charges put forth against their brethren, which wasn't helped by the fact some were pushing for the idea of "Christian Nationalism" proposed by Stephen Wolfe. So I sought after something which brought more unity and thus had to re-examine my beliefs.

    This isn't long, like I said, but it is something to put out since some might be asking questions now as to what is causing me to abandon the title of Reformed/Calvinist. I have already seen some toxicity as some only would fellowship or follow me if I was a Calvinist. The main thing I seek for is a faith which is both biblical and historical as well as true to the ecclesial unity (catholicity) of the church in fellowship and worship. The Episcopal Church (Anglicanism) is where I believe my path in this must go. While I am neither Calvinist, Arminian, Molinist or Open Theist, I would agree with Phillip Schaff's comment on the manner from Volume VIII of his Church History as a position I hold to (except the last comment on it being more "Christian" than either of them:

"Calvinism emphasized divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasized human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine that Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them."

The Cultural Political Hypocrisy: A Rejoinder Towards Today's Conservatives Intellectual Decline

     I am a conservative in the sense that I am "one who adheres to traditional methods or views." I am one who likes the tradition of the Christian Church, especially the Episcopalian tradition. In fact, the Bible commands us to hold to traditions (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15) as well as the affirmation of the good traditions in scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I would hold to the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed & the Athanasian Creed, which are three creeds I recite during daily office or the Eucharist on the Lord's Day service. However, we have reached a time where there is another view in mind for conservatives, which is referring to the political & cultural conservatives. I am sure you have heard some of the phrase: "They have gone woke!" "It's the liberal left!" "Another left wing snowflake!"

    So some might be asking, why am I talking about this? I am perfectly okay with differences of opinions in politics. America, as well as the Episcopal Church, is known for having and allowing disagreements on issues while at the same time showing unity, love and peace between members of the church. However, we reach an odd point where people are now going to argue by simply using insults and ad hominem arguments with terms like woke, snowflake, liberal, etc. to score some slam dunk as people are complaining about how too sensitive and insecure certain democrats & left wing individuals are. I have noticed this among some of those on the left, but I have also noticed it in the right wing folks as well. Not all of them, but there are a few interesting people who will pretty much act like the people they criticize.

    I remember one example was involving a book by Andrew M. King called "Social Identity and the Book of Amos" and how this led to somebody accusing Andrew of being something he wasn't. In order to understand what the book is about, here is the description from Amazon:

"What, according to the Book of Amos, does it mean to be the people of God? In this book, Andrew M. King employs a Social Identity Approach (SIA), comprised of Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory, to explore the relationship between identity formation and the biblical text. Specifically, he examines the identity-forming strategies embedded in the Book of Amos. King begins by outlining the Social Identity Approach, especially its use in Hebrew Bible scholarship. Turning to the Book of Amos, he analyzes group dynamics and intergroup conflicts (national and interpersonal), as well as Amos’s presentation of Israel’s history and Israel’s future. King provides extensive insight into the rhetorical strategies in Amos that shape the trans-temporal audience’s sense of self. To live as the people of God, according to Amos, readers and hearers must adopt norms defined by a proper relationship to God that results in the proper treatment of others."

    So here we see that we are just dealing with an approach at understanding how the Book of Amos deals with the question of what it means to be an Israelite using the Social Identity Theory & Self-Categorization Theory, both not being exclusively liberal ideas. Yet, a Christian tried to find something to protest about it because it had the words Social and Identity on there, which were commonly used by liberals. Therefore, its promoting Socialism. Despite asking for evidence and even the author of the book correcting him on this, the guy just would not listen. He simply said that he knew and he didn't have to prove himself because he's been around many false teachers to know what one sounds like. It was one of the strangest moments I experienced.

    There is then the whole thing about cancel culture which essentially is just a way of blocking or preventing people from having a platform to voice their views. Wikipedia defines it as "a culture in which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner are ostracized, boycotted or shunned." So if some are against it, then we would expect there to be consistency of this by some of the most prominent critics, correct? Not exactly. Some will say that "cancel culture is stupid" while also trying to ban people from speaking at other platforms, report people for things with the intent to get people banned from social media platforms, and spreading the word to block or report an individual. It is essentially people condemning cancel culture by also participating in cancel culture.

    One of these that became a notorious case was a person with a twitter account named ValidLs who attempted to try and cancel a furry named BlueFolf by compiling a fake discord conversation in order to paint BlueFolf as a person who harms children. After the evidence was starting to be shown that it was clearly a fake and doctored image of a  conversation, the damage was already being done as eventually BlueFolf managed to get doxxed (prior to the controversy of course) and a screenshot of the fake image was sent to their parents. While it is unclear whether or not ValidLs was intending to make it this far with the aftermath, what is ironic is the fact that ValidLs had shared and encouraged people to go after Blue as well as create the fake discord conversation AFTER being called out by BlueFolf to be deplatformed or "cancelled." In other words, ValidLs responded to cancel culture by participating and encouraging cancel culture itself.

    The solution that can be solved in this is simple: either admit your hypocrisy and move on or do not even interact with the individuals or controversy in any response whatsoever. It's funny how some will say "I do not get triggered" yet get  triggered when they see an LGBTQ+ flag or even an atheist meme trending on the internet. People who claim to not be triggered yet respond in lengthy posts or make mock memes in return are people who are triggered. We should respond biblically as Christians as 1 Timothy 6:11 says "but you, man of God, flee from these things, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness."

    We should get out of the culture of trying to be triggered or angry, instead choosing to love one another, especially our neighbor and enemies (1 John 4:7, Luke 6:27-28, Matthew 5:43-48) while also praying for everybody, including those you disagree with (1 Timothy 2:1-2, Romans 12:14-19). Consider well the words of Proverbs 24:17-18: "Don’t gloat when your enemy falls, and don’t let your heart rejoice when he stumbles, or the Lord will see, be displeased, and turn his wrath away from him." Do not be a hypocrite and do not act like the world, for we are to be holy and set apart from the world.

Different Gospel or Adiaphora? An Episcopalian Response to Tim Stratton

"Although we use the same words when sharing the gospel, after one looks under the hood... one quickly sees that this view that Calvinists espouse is quite frankly a totally different Gospel than the one most Christians have in mind when sharing the good news."

- Tim Stratton, "Calvinism: A Different Gospel" video

    So in my recent shift towards going from several different theological viewpoints, I am certainly starting to evolve my understanding of theological positions from going towards shifts from one side of the spectrum to another. Even more recently is my current agnosticism towards Calvinism in light of some perspectives and understandings I have engaged with. That being said, I would affirm that even if I were to forsake Calvinism and lean towards either Molinism or Arminianism, I would still view Calvinism as another branch of the vine of Christ among the others that preaches the same historical gospel. However, it seems that Dr. Tim Stratton, a Christian Theologian, will argue that Calvinism is very much a different gospel. Anytime that I hear of an accusation of another gospel, this is a very serious charge I must consider. Especially when it comes to what the Apostle Paul says:

"I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! For am I now trying to persuade people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ."

- Galatians 1: 6-10 (CSB)

    So when I saw this video came out, I needed to take a look at the claims and decide what to make of them. My first thing to point is that I do not think that Molinism is a false gospel nor do I hold to it as a false view of God. While I may disagree with it, I consider it adiaphora. Adiaphora being just a fancy way of saying that it is a disagreement without violating orthodoxy. Some might be shocked to hear a Calvinist say this, though not shocking if you read my article on Provisionism. My only contention is on the approach of this view from a mixture of philosophical critique while also considering Christian history view Scripture and Church History. Because I do not think one can consistently claim that Calvinists are fellow Christians while also charging them with teaching another Gospel. Biblically and historically, this just cannot be seen as the case. We shall begin an examination of the five points in Stratton's video. Before we get into that, let's explore the one key theme here:

PREFACE: What Exactly Constitutes "Low View?"

    Tim will mostly focus on the objection of Calvinism rendering a low view of God, scripture, man, sin & the Gospel. When listening to the five low views argued on, I was trying to figure out how exactly this objectively constitutes such. In my understanding of some of these debates and perspectives regarding adiaphora matters, it is simply an issue of a subjective feeling regarding a topic dealing with objective matters. In other words, different interpretations on something that still agree on essential fundamentals. Just like one can have a view of Social Trinitarianism and another on Latin Trinitarianism, but both affirm the trinity without a charge of heresy being accounted to them (except by some radical traditionalists that feel the need to nitpick either as heresy).

    There can be other arguments apart from the Calvinist view of things that one could possibly argue for low view of things within Christianity. The first example that I can think of recently that I believe is in mind regards the Eucharist or Lord's Supper as some call it. There have been different interpretations over the years, but two come to mind when it comes to the Protestant view without getting into the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation. There is either the memorial/symbolic view or there is the Real Presence view where Christ is really present in the Eucharist. From what I would argue, I believe that Real Presence would push towards a high view of Christ whereas the symbolic "only in memory" view as taught by the majority of Baptists in church history. This is due to the view of essentially removing the teaching of Christ's presence among the Eucharist despite what is taught in scripture and the early church. However, one can see, as noted by Phillip Schaff, that there are several different views of the eucharist within the first six centuries of the church.

    A second one can be noted in baptism between the debates on infant baptism as well as baptismal regeneration. I would affirm both of these doctrines as a Protestant while arguing that the opposite views would render a low view of God's grace, covenant and salvation. However, while I could argue this despite the big historical affirmation of it as well as verses that obviously refer to the baptism of water for salvation, this would be another case of adiaphora in my opinion and not a means to suggest a legit low view nor heresy. Especially when one examines the early church ecumenical councils which showed several condemnations of historical errors. None of which condemns infant baptism nor baptismal regeneration.

    Other examples can be seen in the whole high church and low church divide regarding some who would affirm a liturgical versus the "baptist" service of music and preaching 30 minutes each, the doctrine of hell where some argue that eternal conscious torment & conditionalism is a low view of God as opposed to universalism (I disagree with universalism by the way), the debate on the biblical canon and that Protestants have a low view of the church as well as the Holy Spirit, and the divide over calling Mary the "Mother of God" whereas some say those who call her such are having a low view of God and a high view of Mary as a divine being (despite this being a silly argument to suggest such in light of who Christ is). However, I do not think that these are issues that are going to have a big deal regarding disagreement. I think they are adiaphora matters, similar to the Calvinism vs Non Calvinism divide. Hence why I fail to see any objective "low view of" the subjects in mind for the Christian.

    I feel that, relevant to this upcoming subject, we should point out some interesting alternatives to low views of God as it relates to Arminianism. The first is Arminianism as it relates to an objection Gordon H. Clark, an apologist who would've been the William Lane Craig of his time if it weren't for the controversy that arose between him and Van Til, soon formulates in his work on the problem of evil. To quote Clark:

"Free will was put forward to relieve God of responsibility for sin. But this it does not do. Suppose there were a lifeguard stationed on a dangerous beach. In the breakers a boy is being sucked out to sea by the strong undertow... He will drown without powerful aid.… But the lifeguard simply sits on his high chair and watches him drown... After all, it was of his own free will that the boy went into the surf... Would an Arminian now conclude that the lifeguard thus escapes culpability?... Unlike the boy who exists in relative independence of the lifeguard, in actuality God made the boy and the ocean, too. Now, if the guard—who is not a creator at all—is responsible for permitting the boy to drown, even if the boy is supposed to have entered the surf of his own free will, does not God—who made them—appear in a worse light? Surely an omnipotent God could have either made the boy a better swimmer, or made the ocean less rough, or at least have saved him from drowning."

(Clark, God and Evil, 17-18; Religion, Reason, and Revelation, 204-5)

    So as Clark puts it, there is still a problem found in the means of declaring free will as the response towards the problem of evil as well as the overall theological worldview. However, the point is simply this: no view is free from difficulty or objections of "low view." As even Gavin Ortlund in his video, "Calvinism Isn't Crazy" notes: "If you don't like Calvinism, you have to provide some other answer to this mysterious question of "Is God Sovereign" and if so in what sense?... Any view you take on this, I would just say we got room for humility and trembling here. Any view you take has difficulties. For the classical Arminian, for example, you think God foreknows that people will reject him and yet he chooses to create them. Now so full well knowing that this person will be damned, he still chooses to create them. Now that is not the same problem, but it is still not an easy option to embrace. There is still questions that arise." This can even be stated regarding Molinism, the position that Stratton would, but I am going to simply save this for a read from Turretin, who I think best deals with Molinism. I'll link to an article citing from Turretin's Institutes to go over the matter here.

1. Low View of God

    The main part of this point, which eventually leads to the other four points, is that Calvinism creates a "low view" of God, which is built from a quote by AW Tozer, one of my favorite Christian authors I learned from. The quote from the preface of Knowledge of the Holy reads as follows: "The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men... The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us." This quote is then agreed on and the view of Exhaustive Divine Determinism is viewed therefore as a "low view of God" based on God being a "deity of deception and an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs." However I have two points towards this. First one being the quote and the low view of God being defined by Tozer in that same preface. I'll put more of the quote and bold the words that aren't from the original part.

"The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men. This she has done not deliberately, but little by little and without her knowledge; and her very unawareness only makes her situation all the more tragic. The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us. A whole new philosophy of the Christian life has resulted from this one basic error in our religious thinking. With our loss of the sense of majesty has come the further loss of religious awe and consciousness of the divine Presence. We have lost our spirit of worship and our ability to withdraw inwardly to meet God in adoring silence. Modern Christianity is simply not producing the kind of Christian who can appreciate or experience the life in the Spirit. The words, ”Be still, and know that I am God,” mean next to nothing to the self-confident, bustling worshipper in this middle period of the twentieth century."

    So here we find the main view is this surrendering is not done deliberately by the church, but without her knowledge being completely unaware. A philosophy of sorts that is an innovation of the Christian way of living. One which tries to forgo the sense of the holy and majesty. It is essentially the numbing down of the divine mysteries and the divine holiness of God that church buildings aren't viewed as sanctuaries of God, but as mere buildings. God's holy attributes aren't considered either because then they are just viewed as mere attributes and not considering holiness. Indeed, as Tozer says in the same preface: "The decline of the knowledge of the holy has brought on our troubles. A rediscovery of the majesty of God will go a long way toward curing them. It is impossible to keep our moral practices sound and our inward attitudes right while our idea of God is erroneous or inadequate. If we would bring back spiritual power to our lives, we must begin to think of God more nearly as He is."

    Furthermore, with the argument that the God of Calvinism is a God of deception and an unreliable source of theological beliefs, then we need to consider why this is such. According to him, it is because it is determined for these false beliefs to be therefore a low view of God. However, this I would argue is just not the case. It is simply one approach by which God chooses to grant us knowledge, but we are still operating agents with cognitive function. Plus as a result, I would argue that the limit on our knowledge is due to the results of what we would call the Creator-Creature Distinction with what can be called Analogical Knowledge. In other words, our knowledge and ability for knowledge is not as perfect or great as God's which will thus put us into the problem of getting false beliefs despite our convictions. But if we want to point out certain problems, we must then show there can be objections to the Molinist view that leads to similar problems.

    In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Molinism, we learn that "proponents of the doctrine of middle knowledge believe that things could have been different than they, in fact, are. There is much that is not necessary about the way the world is." Further, we see the following example: "God could have made things differently. The sky could be yellow instead of blue, or the grass pink. God could have chosen to not create at all. Although this assumption should be self-evident, it is also supported by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Things could have been different."

    So when we have the Natural Knowledge of God along with the Free Knowledge of God being met with a Middle Knowledge, we might come to an objection found in issues of why did God create x to possibly believe y, which can include false beliefs like racism, pseudoscience, heresy, etc. in the first place? If it is part of the best possible world, as some say, for x to believe y, then it comes to an issue one can raise about the results of such beliefs. For example, the racist beliefs leading to murder, oppression, discrimination, etc. when the lack of racist belief could prevent such cruelty rooted in these beliefs. Some would argue, "why didn't God directly come and tell him. Why did he just watch it happen and not tell him directly that this is wrong?"'

    This is not to suggest there are no solutions to this objection or problem for the Molinist, but neither does this mean there is no solution the Calvinist can offer up. The point is that we should not be so much focused on the logical or philosophical of a belief as Tozer points out and instead, we should learn to appreciate the Divine in light of the mysterious and the holiness that doesn't seek to please men.

2. Low View of Scripture

    This is a sort of follow up on the previous point since if God is an untrustworthy source of theological beliefs, then how can we trust the Bible? This can be resolved in simply arguing for the truth of the Bible based on the presupposition regarding God's attributes and perfection as it comes to the words He inspired. We point out this logical truth of God in light of the Creator-Creature Distinction. To me, this doesn't seem like that much different from what I addressed previously, but I will make another point similar in light of inspiration of the Bible.

    If God didn't want false information communicated with proper interpretations, then we must consider why under non Calvinist view points, we see this problem happen. To formulate one of the under utilized logical problems on this subject, we turn to the Interpretation Argument (which is a problem even for Calvinists). To lay out the premises:

    1. For any message God wants to communicate, he knows how to communicate it such that it will be interpreted correctly

    2. For any message God wants to communicate, he is capable of communicating it such that it will be interpreted correctly

    Therefore: If God chooses to communicate a message it must be interpreted correctly.

    So we must then ask "why are there false interpretations contrary to the message God wanted to communicate, despite being capable of communicating it in such a way that it will be interpreted correctly?" One could argue free will, but this would then have to deal with Premise 2 and the Conclusion of the argument. Plus, there has to also be an explanation for incorrect interpretations which lead to harm not just to the church, but also for humanity in general. Such as the case of the interpretation of Westboro Baptist Church, New Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, certain sects of Black Hebrew Israelites, etc. whom use very harmful interpretations that lead to people getting killed. Some would find a God who decrees a murder to be on the same level as one who knows something bad will happen with false information in mind, but chooses not to do anything directly or to reverse the course of action.

    Another point to note is false facts in the bible. Dr. Michael Heiser, a favorite scholar of mine, has pointed out that you will find innacurate science in the Bible such as the flat earth cosmology of the Bible. Why would God put this info in which then leads to a slight halt in the advancement of science by some proponents of the Biblical text? There are Christians who were at the frontier of scientific advancement, but then there are others who would use it to halt the advancement of scientific research.

3. Low View of Man

    This is the popular argument against Calvinism where essentially man is a cog in the machine of predetermined events. To me this is solved by the use of compatibilism, despite Stratton calling this "one of the worst ideas ever introduced to the church.  It has brought nothing but confusion and those who purport it often have good intentions, yet they inadvertently deceive those who have not been trained to think otherwise..." in his article on Compatibilism is Incompatible with Reality. However, this brings many presuppositions with it regarding the manner and will also be guilty of the same objections for Molinism that Stratton raises towards Calvinism. If we are to avoid bringing confusion into the church, then what about the confusion from introducing certain philosophical terms and concepts into the church? Middle Knowledge is something I learned of from William Lane Craig in 2015 and could not understand it at all until years later. Even asking my family members and pastor about it led to them being confused and dismissed it as something not to believe because it is too complicated and confusing with "unnecessary categories of God's knowledge." So the introducing of three categories of knowledge from God would just bring about the same problems that Calvinism brings.

    So the idea is ultimately arguing that Calvinism is holding such a low view of man because it shows that man cannot really be considered an agent that does much since their actions have been determined. Like the previous takes on God & Scripture, I do not see how this reduces to a low view of man objectively. Some could argue that holding to a sinful nature in man or original sin is considered a low view of man. Some would argue free will theism in Christianity would put a low view of man as it relates to God when it comes to the relationship of God and the unrepentant sinner in the desire for repentance. Some would even argue that Hell as either eternal torment or annihilation is a low view of man that views them as needing to be tortured infinitely for finite crimes. Again, these could be argued for the same matter of a low view of God based on how others feel, which is ultimately the real debate here.

4. Low View of Sin

    Sin is now the subject here and I must say that while Stratton is right regarding the definition of sin in language, I feel like this also ignores the main focus on what is considered sin. According to 1 John 3:4, "sin is lawlessness" (CSB) which means that sin is ultimately about violating God's Law, which is part of the gospel message when it comes to understanding sin and how to preach about sin to certain people. But what exactly makes sin have a low view in Calvinism? Simply put, if God determines everything, including sin, then nobody really sins on this view. He even uses the example of Hitler in order to suggest that Hitler was simply a predetermined tool that was given his desires by God via the determined decree of God as another cog in the machine. However, we need to consider that again, this then leads to another view relative to similar scenarios regarding the low view of man and God objections that I put forth earlier.

    When it comes to the low view of sin though, some theonomists as well as New Independent Fundamentalist Baptists might argue that the rejection of certain "moral laws" being done today like the dietary laws or executions for certain sins is a low view of sin because you are rejecting the punishments taught in the Old Testament which teach us what sin is. Sinless Perfectionists would argue that if you teach that nobody can become sinless today, your are teaching a low view of sin and are thus responsible for why people are sinning because you have gone soft on sin by teaching everybody sins. Others might attempt to even argue against the Gospel by saying that the gospel teaches forgiveness of sin as if you violate the law and shouldn't be punished for it because you are merely forgiven or have somebody else pay your fine for you. "This is cowardice and unjust" says the certain critic. "How can you have such a low view of sin by letting the actual criminal get away with it because somebody wanted to pay it off?"

5. Low View of the Gospel

    The Gospel is given an acronym definition in this next part by Stratton, which even the points of O & S, could be argued for as low views of man and sin by some, but we shall continue to the general argument by Stratton. Essentially, he says that the Calvinist gospel is different from the regular gospel by replacing the general and vague ideas of the Gospel with specific theological points mixed with the general and vague ideas of the Gospel. This is honestly an unfair tactic used because this is what can be done to LITERALLY  EVERYONE'S OTHER'S VIEWS. Meaning one can put in the specific exhaustive details of a theological view to show Molinism has a different gospel than that of the Arminian or Open Theist. This is honestly to me a very uncharitable approach to an individual's gospel and I am ashamed that it was done by somebody as professional as Dr. Stratton. Especially a Christian individual.

    He then goes to argue that while Calvinism is guilty of Galatians 1:8-9's charge of teaching a false gospel, he argues that "I am not saying that Calvinists are not Christians... They are going to heaven." This is a contradiction though in light of what Galatians teaches. The definition of accursed in Galatians as it relates to the teacher of the false gospel is simply one who is cursed or devoted for God's wrath into utter destruction. In other words, it is about them being damned to hell if they preach a false gospel. This has been the understanding of the early church in the first three centuries before eventually it was in the fourth century that council languages used the term accursed or anathema to refer to simple excommunication. We will even show a syllogism to show the problem in Stratton's reasoning.

P1: Those who preach a false gospel are accursed

P2: To be accursed is to be under God's curse of utter destruction

P3: Christians are not under God's curse of utter destruction

C: Therefore, Christians do not preach a false gospel

Conclusion

    Tim Stratton's language is one which can be very confusing at first because as is seen by some, people will try to use some of the points in Stratton's video to argue that Calvinists are not Christians (which shows these people do not watch the rest of the video or even start to watch it). Stratton however needs to consider that Molinism, Calvinism, Arminianism and Open Theism do not touch on the essence of the Gospel. The Gospel is affirmed in the creed of 1 Corinthians 15, the message in Romans 1, the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed & The Athanasian Creed. These have been sources of affirmation of what is to be believed in order to be saved. These are the key elements of the Gospel. We are to use the law as well to demonstrate what is sin, but then teach them to follow the Law of Love. My worry about Stratton's video is that it will eventually cause more confusion that confounds the church, tear the divide between the church at the moment as opposed to the striving for church unity and eventually, lead to Gospel becoming an elitist message of not a general common Christianity, but a specific church similar to the NIFB, Westboro Baptist Church and various other groups that say all other denominations or theological viewtakers opposite of their one church will be "going to hell because they are teaching a false gospel compared to us."

    Hopefully, we do not adopt this mindset and hopefully Stratton can eventually change his mind on saying Calvinism teaches a false gospel and just be consistent in the embracing of Calvinists as Christians by affirming they preach the same gospel. While Tozer criticizes Calvinism, he does not accuse them of having a low view of God in the book Stratton cites. Nor has he charged them as having any in his other writings or sermons. In fact, I will end this by quoting from AW Tozer on how we should respond and behave.

"Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become ‘unity’ conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship."

- AW Tozer, The Pursuit of God

The Sources of Islamic Doctrine: What Every Christian Needs To Understand from Islam

(This is an old essay from October 2020 from the Defender Times quarterly)

    The best way to approach any religion, whether it be for edification or refutation, is to study the sources of which the religion gets its doctrine from. If you wanted to learn about Christianity, you would learn from the Bible. If you wanted to learn more about certain terms or doctrines found in these sources in much more detail, you’d consult a scholar of that particular religion at least. However, the best option is to refer to the original sources themselves. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, one of Islam’s imams who influenced the Hanbali school of Islam and even has been called by some as “shaykh al-islam” (meaning this person is the shaykh of Islam), is reported to have said the following based on various website reports of the quote: “Do not imitate me, Malik, al-Shafi’i or al-Thawri but learn from the source from which they learned.”

    In order to learn much from these, we need to begin by picking up these books and beginning our research into these. The first to start with is the Quran, the supposed divinely inspired revelation from Allah to Muhammad. The stories go that Muhammad went to a cave where he would eventually receive the revelation of the Quran through the angel Gabriel. After receiving this, he would go about teaching it and sharing it with others through oral tradition until ultimately, the book was written down in book format during the reign of the caliph (Islamic ruler) Abu Bakr AFTER Muhammad died. Ibn Hujar in Fathul Bari says that “The Prophet was taken (from this life) whilst the Quran had not yet been gathered into a book.” It was after the death of Muhammad that we see issues arise as originally, the only written forms were on memory aids for specific verses and not a whole book.

    Sahih Bukhari #4986 says the following: “Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailima). (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al- Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "`Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" `Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project." `Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which `Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم(. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم (did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and `Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty.. (till the end of Surat-Baraa' (at-Tauba) (9.128- 129). Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with `Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of `Umar.”

    So while this time period gives us the Quran in book format, there were still issues as we will examine in the next numbered hadith of Sahih Bukhari. “Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to `Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before."” It was at this point that the caliph Uthman would offer a solution to the Islamic community. “So `Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to `Uthman. `Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, `Abdullah bin AzZubair, Sa`id bin Al-As and `AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. `Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, `Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. `Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.”

    Some Muslims are uncomfortable with this narrative, but most who are well educated on the topic of the history of the Quran are very familiar with how the Quran came to them today. However, there are issues regarding the Quran that we unfortunately do not have the time in this essay to get into.  For indeed, a faithful yet critical treatment of the Quran is to be done with exhaustive details.

    Then you have how the Quran is divided up, which can be confusing for some. The Quran is divided into surahs (chapters). So whenever I refer to a part of the Quran, I would say Surah 1:1 or something along the lines. There are people who have other ways of citing the Quran, but for our sake, we will just use the reference I gave. The surahs are usually understood to be divided into two different categories: Meccan Surahs & Medinan Surahs. The Medinan Surahs are the chapters of the Quran that are said to be revealed after the move to the city of that name. Meccan surahs are typically shorter than Medinan surahs that are likewise named such because of the city that Muhammad moved to and they mostly come near the end of the Qur'an. The one thing to notice is that these Quranic Surahs are not in order as they will move from one type of surah to another and then back to the other. In “The Quran: A Historical-Critical Introduction”, Nicolai Sinai comments on this in page 26 by saying “the order of the surahs appears to be partly determined by decreasing length, a principle that perhaps underlies the arrangement of the Pauline epistles in the New Testament as well.” So while indeed the chapters can be confusing, it’s best to at least consult a website or book that at least helps explain when the chapters were revealed to get a better understanding of chronology and background of the supposed Surah.

    Now we move to the second source of authority in the Muslim world: the hadith. The website, Sunnah.com, gives a good definition and explanation of what the hadith are: “Hadith are the transmitted narrations concerning the speech, actions, appearance, and approvals of the Messenger of Allah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Hundreds of thousands of these narrations have been carefully preserved, studied, and passed down through the centuries, with many of them having undergone a strict procedure to verify an authentic chain of transmission up to the Prophet (pbuh). Hadith form the textual core of the Sunnah, an important source for the derivation of Islamic jurisprudence second only to the Qur'an. Hadith specialists have compiled hadith in various collections with differing criteria for inclusion, and not all hadith in all collections are necessarily authentic.”

    If you noticed the numbers I gave earlier from Bukhari, then you will see that is one of the examples of the hadith being cited. There are different ways of citing hadith depending on who is the publisher of the collection you are reading. There are normally 6 referenced hadiths which are as follows: Sahih al- Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan an-Nasai, Sunan Abi Dawud, Jami al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Ibn Majah. There are other hadith collection books like Muwatta Malik, Musnad Ahmad and the 40 Hadith of Nawawi. However, we will not go into too much details about those since the first six are usually what is quote or cited the most. Whenever we engage with studying Islam, we need to realize that this is where the doctrines of Islam can be completed. Examples include the five daily prayers that Muslims do. This is not found in the Quran, but the hadith. The conversion formula for the shahada, “I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God”, is only found in the hadith and not the Quran.

    The hadith play a significant role in understanding the history of the Islamic world as they provide insights into how their faith was carried out and how they understood it. Sometimes you will even find the companions of Muhammad, or even Muhammad himself, commenting on what exactly a verse of the Quran means. The main reason why this history is important is because the Quran says in Surah 4:65 that “But no! By your Lord, they will never be ˹true˺ believers until they accept you ˹O Prophet˺ as the judge in their disputes, and find no resistance within themselves against your decision and submit wholeheartedly” (Clear Quran Translation). So the Muslims are to not resist against the decisions of Muhammad, but to “submit wholeheartedly” to them. Elsewhere, Surah 33:21 says “Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often” (Clear Quran Translation). Muhammad is viewed as an “example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day.” Therefore, they are to adhere to not just his words, but his actions and teachings. The Quran only contains the supposed words of Allah and barely mention Muhammad as much regarding the history of his actions. However, it is the hadith which explain the most exhaustive of this that it would be like a biography of the early Muslims.

    The other important factor to note about the hadith is the “grades” of hadith. These grades are mostly known as sahih (sound), hasan (fair) and daif (weak). There are various other reports and grades to this, but we will not go over all of those here. I will at least recommend a resource worth reading for the study of the hadith gradings. Ibn Salah’s “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith” is considered a well-respected old work on the subject and he goes into much extensive detail on the matter. A more modern work to help with the concise details is Dr. Jonathan Brown’s “Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World” which offers research into more than just the grading system when it comes to Hadith critical studies. Essentially, if a hadith is sound, then the hadith is good. If a hadith is hasan, then it simply means the hadith has some issues in transmission, but is still permissible. Dr. Jonathan Brown in page 102 of his “Hadith” book we cited earlier says “All Sunni scholars have accepted both sahih and hasan hadith as compelling proof in manners of law.” Then there is the daif or weak hadiths. These aren’t altogether to be seen as useless. While some will easily dismiss them, the only thing to note is that these just cannot be used for the purpose of legal rulings, but only issues of morality and behavior.

    An example of this weak hadith being used for that is from Sunan Ibn Majah in Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 224 which says "Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim, and he who imparts knowledge to those who do not deserve it, is like one who puts a necklace of jewels, pearls and gold around the neck of swines." Now while we have this saying here, it doesn’t seem too controversial. It is a good thing to seek knowledge and it should be a duty for everyone in general honestly. However, according to Darussalam on their grading scale, it is classified as a daif hadith. Does this mean just throw this out altogether? Not necessarily. There is even a reported grade of this from Al-Albani where he classifies it as sahih instead. We should also note that some scholars note if there are multiple reports of a particular weak hadith, then it can at least be upgraded to hasan, depending on how many reports or variants of the hadith can be found. Ultimately, knowing this should realize that while weak hadiths aren’t useless, they are not to be too heavily relied on in discussions with Muslims.

    To briefly go over one final important resource when it comes to the Quran and Hadith, we must then consider the issue of using what is known as the commentaries of the Quran. In Arabic, this would refer to the “tafsir” literature. Tafsir scholars usually dedicate their life to understanding and studying the Quran and what it means. Some classic commentaries to use when studying the Quran include Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, which is the only highly respected classical one that has been translated into English (the other would be al-Tabari’s translation which has not seen a fully English translation yet). The trademarks of the Ibn Kathir tafsir is that he goes into the commentary from not just mere observation, but the citation of the hadiths to show how a verse is understood in historical context and how the early Muslims interpreted the verse. One of the easier ones is al- Jalalayn which is a tafsir that sums up the verse with extra explainations. If al-Jalalayn could be compared with a christian commentator, he would essentially be viewed as an “Islamic expositor” of the scriptures. It is in this that we see for example, his tafsir of Surah 2:28. The verse says “How can you deny Allah? You were lifeless and He gave you life, then He will cause you to die and again bring you to life, and then to Him you will ˹all˺ be returned” (Clear Quran Translation). In the tafsir however, we read the following with the quranic part in bold letters: “How do you, people of Mecca, disbelieve in God, when you were dead, semen inside loins, and He gave you life, in the womb and in this world by breathing Spirit into you (the interrogative here is either intended to provoke amazement at their [persistent] unbelief despite the evidence established, or intended as a rebuke); then He shall make you dead, after your terms of life are completed, then He shall give you life, at the Resurrection, then to Him you shall be returned!, after resurrection, whereupon He shall requite you according to your deeds.” A more modern example is the Study Quran which can be purchased. It is essentially a commentary with a survey of how other scholars interpreted the verses and can be very useful when trying to understand how various different scholars and schools of Islam understood and apply a certain verse of the Quran to their theology.

    So these are the recommended sources to study when it comes to Islam at a basic level. There are more, but we will only rest here. Keep studying though as you research their theology books, their books about their creed, their books on tawhid (since tawhid is more complex than what we are just told), and many other books which can tell you what exactly are the beliefs of Muslims. But remember to stick with the source of Islamic theology: the Quran & the Hadith. It is because of this after all that they even have a claim or belief in Islam to begin with.

    However, some other suggestions to read are the following: “Kitab Al-Tawheed” by Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab since it helps explain the doctrine of Tawhid which is central to the belief of God in Islam. “An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran” by Yasir Qadhi, who offers a believer’s perspective of the Quran yet with a good bit of intellectual insight into the narratives. “Usool Al-Hadeeth” by Bilal Phillips, who helps explain the study and topics of hadith sciences for the layman. Any book from the “Islamic Creed” Series by Umar S. al-Ashqar, who offers insight to essential Muslim beliefs regarding the six articles of faith in Islam. These are only just a few extra resources I will recommend for people to look at when studying Islam as a non-Muslim while doing their best to learn what the other believes and how to engage with them. Remember, you want to interact with the religion of Islam and the beliefs of the actual Muslims, not strawman arguments and ideas that the Muslims do not adhere to or even believe from the beginning. Remember, be faithful in your evangelism.

The Black Hebrew Israelites: An Introduction

(This is an old essay from July 2020 in the Defender Times quarterly)

    There isn’t much to say about this group in light of the fact that not many books have been written to defend or critique the ideas of this false cult of racial tension and hatred. However, I will offer a basic introduction so that you may know the gist of what most of this group believes. A good portion of this goes to thanking Vocab Malone with his book, "Barack Obama vs The Black Hebrew Israelites". We will be using this book for the essay, so please refer to the page numbers cited if you are wishing to see the source of the info. Let’s see if we can make this work.

    “The “Hebrew Israelites” are a religious group growing in visibility, activity and influence in many urban areas” (p. 6). The fact is that most of these groups grow up in the rural and urban areas of places, trying to make racial minorities their targets of places to preach and witness at. This shouldn’t be a surprise in light of the birth of the movement coming from the same kind of environment with the purpose of just reaching there. Vocab Malone notes that the “modern landscape of US Hebrew Israelism has significant streams flowing out of these two metro areas: Harlem, New York and the South Side of Chicago” (p. 16). Elsewhere, we read of the origins of the name of “1West Israelites” and the roots of this movement: “The ideological descendants classified as 1Westers all have their beginnings in a religious school that was headquartered at 1 West 125th Street in Harlem. The school began in 1969. It was originally called the Israelite School of Torah and located on 5th Avenue in Harlem. The school was run by a man named Abba Bivens (later, it would be led by a group of leaders called “The Seven Heads”). It is said that Bivens was first told he was an “Israelite” by an ex-slave in the South. Bivens relocated to New York and joined the Commandment Keepers under Chief Rabbi Wentworth Arthur Matthews” (p. 23).

    So as you can tell, it was a man named Abba Bivens (also known as Ebar ban Yamin) who founded the main school of what we call the Hebrew Israelite movement today. It is in this man who would branch out to start his own movement to claim that Black people were the chosen people of God: The Israelites. It was there that he began teaching some of the beliefs we know today by this cult. However, it wouldn’t last long as eventually Bivens was murdered by Muslims he was talking to in debate format in New Jersey. It was there that his students would pick up the work.

    “Three of his students, Arieh, Mosheh, and Yakob (Ahrayah’s father) began a new school, right around the corner at 1 West 125th Street in Harlem. They changed the name to the Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge. Arieh, introduced a number of significant innovations: belief in the King James Bible, the 12 Tribes Chart and his own version of Hebrew (“Lashawan Qadash”). He later introduced the failed year 2000 prophecy (he predicted Christ would return in 2000). Arayah based this “prophecy” off of Hosea 6” (p. 23). I’m sure you’ve noticed that there is Arieh and then there is Ahrayah. Vocab notes this is to demonstrate how they used their own version of Hebrew to create their names.

    It is in this history that we see the origins of some of the basic beliefs we see. However, it would be Arayah who would create the rest of the foundational beliefs of modern fake “Israelites.” The ten basic beliefs of this movement from its roots are as follows:

1. African Amercians, Hispanics, and Native Americans are the true Israelites

2. Modern day Jews are fake impostors

3. KJV Onlyism with the Apocrypha (Some are OT Only)

4. White people are “Edomites” who will be judged by God

5. Salvation is procured by lawkeeping. Sabbath-observance, dietary

restrictions, and a certain outward appearance (beards and fringes) are marks

of spiritual understanding and holiness

6. Jesus was an African American man

7. Europeans, Arabs, Asians and Indians are not able to be saved. Some groups

think all can be saved if they adhere to the Torah laws

8. Both heaven and hell are merely “states of mind” or conditions. Neither are

metaphysical realities

9. God’s name is either “Yahuah” or “Ahayah” and that Jesus’ name is either

“Yahawashi” or “Yashayah”

10. They must preach to the “Jakes” (African Americans who haven’t realized

their heritage as Israelites) and get them convinced of “the truth”

    It is here we can see the clear distinct beliefs. By no means is this list exhaustive as doctrines change and others are present. For example, IUIC (Israel United in Christ) affirm a doctrine of reincarnation they call “Regeneration”, while ISUPK (Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge) is honest to actually call their doctrine reincarnation. Whatever beliefs you run into, you should at least be familiar with your Bible well enough to know how to refute their false claims.

    One doctrine to note, in case you run into them on the streets, is what is called the “Strong & Wrong” doctrine. A fellow Christian named J The Producer recalled his time in the training camps of IUIC where he was taught with others to engage quickly with conversations. They were not allowed to pause or stutter when engaging in these sessions, so even catch phrases being shouted in military unison, insults and going to different verses of the bible with a different topic is usually how these people would commit this doctrine to heart. So keep this in mind if you ever plan to evangelize to these people at their spots.

    This should serve as a pretty good and decent introduction to the movement, but I would hope that you get the chance to get the book that is quoted in this essay since Vocab Malone goes into more of the movement and offers a sound refutation of their doctrine while providing the details and lists of different sects of this cult.