We have reached an age of time where we are at a point where new depths of lows have reached in Protestant Christianity. Where unity among the Church was strong until we experienced a wave of the rogue religious police who get to determine who is a heretic based on brand new inventive labels and suggestions as opposed to the tradition of the Christian Church that was gifted to us by the apostles. Even by coming up with brand new interpretations that not only fail in exegesis, but fail to have any historical validity to them. Which doesn't surprise me since one among the group I refer to has essentially stated that the Church Fathers had an inferior understanding of scripture and that modern interpretations are more superior. What group am I referring to? I am talking about the anti-Calvinist types who spend their obsession with Calvinism as a fixation or will go to the extreme of excommunicating Calvinists from being considered Christian.
I found this line of reasoning to be problematic for a few reasons. The first being that it is just simply not true and is based more on the concept of fear and irrationality as opposed to actual truth matters of these debates. I essentially went through this stage before when I wasn't a Calvinist during my new journey after I became a Christian in 2013, where I would argue they were not Christians and that Calvinism a heresy. However, this same reasoning led me to believe Hell was not real because I thought it was a heresy that made God become a moral monster and that everybody going to heaven with nobody going to hell was the most moral view of God. I eventually repented of this idea. Even as a non-Calvinist now, I have changed my perspective on this after studying the Bible in depth as well as studying Church history.
Before I get into the full issues with anti-Calvinists, I must preface more as to why I have an issue and some of the people that became a wake up call for me on this. It all first started once I engaged with Leighton Flowers on the subject whenever I became a Calvinist. The whole debacle of people being against Calvinism so passionately was still new to me. Flowers wasn't really the problem, but it was some of those who followed him who were being very toxic. I will refer to why I believe Flowers has addressed this in an article I wrote on him awhile back. Then I started to encounter two popular channels in a similar vein who went by the names of Provisionist Perspective (Eric/Drew) and The Idol Killer (Warren McGrew). Both of these channels went even harder in the direction of anti-Calvinism than Flowers, especially Warren McGrew. I didn't really pay them any mind at first.
I then realized how some in this group would dehumanize people or separate between the person and the person's faith. In a case where I was struggling with anxiety and depression, I had made this vocal and public before I was contacted via Discord by, what I can assume, was somebody from the Provisionist Perspective (I just cannot remember who). Once he confided in me that I was able to talk to him about anything that was damaging my mental health due to anxiety or depression, I thought everything was fine until much later on where I was essentially dehumanized and counted as a monster teaching immoral doctrines because I was a Calvinist. There was no way I was going to be finding in comfort in my depression or anxiety with them. Even as a non-Calvinist today, I would not consort or seek to have guidance from them.
So it is with this crowd and their followers who spout the constant obsession of "saving Calvinists from the heresy of Calvinism" that I started to really open my eyes. Even more so once I become Episcopalian and started observing things through the lens and perspective of how would the early church react to these things. It was only when I left Calvinism that I realized truly how dangerous these types were to the body of Christ at the cost of forsaking the heritage of Christianity for the sake of wanting to become the new Martin Luther's of a brand new reformation while also failing to understand why Martin Luther started a reformation to begin with. They simply try to create brand new ideas of what Christian Orthodoxy is without caring for the early sources like the Nicene Creed or the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
I shall now expound on the major issues of this movement as it relates to Christian unity by first pointing out that this movement treats it like it is a historical heresy. If we examine the Early Church Fathers, we will fail to see the condemnation of it as a heresy. Especially when we examine that the writings of the Fathers contained elements of both Calvinist and Free Will theology. Not every point of TULIP was taught in their writings, but you can find traces. Especially finding Limited Atonement in the writings of Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, and Tertullian while finding Total Depravity in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Lactantius. And these are fathers who are either during the Apostolic era of the Church Fathers or during the Pre-Nicene period, long before the rise of Augustine in the Church. Which leads me to my next point.
Especially once Warren McGrew spoke more on Calvinism, everybody seemed to point to Augustine as the creator of Calvinism (although people like Jesse Morrell taught this idea before). This point is refuted based on the observations in the previous paragraph, but some like to take it a step further. For example, in a video by Warren, he creates a mockery of Augustine of Hippo by claiming the following: Augustine used Manicheanism and Neoplatonism in his philosophy to redefine his own version of Christianity, created the doctrine of Original Sin and rejected free will, and that God threw unbaptized infants into Hell. Mind you, this is a minority position that is affirmed by McGrew and the others in this camp since this would disagree with pretty much the majority of Christianity in the historic and apostolic Church. A minority position disagreed upon by Anglicans (Episcopalians), Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Wesleyans, etc. when it comes to this topic. While the Eastern Orthodox has a critique of Augustine regarding Original Sin, they still affirm him as a wise teacher and Christian saint since they affirm the Second Council of Constantinople.
The arguments on Neoplatonism are simply false and are just repeats of Islamic, Unitarian and Atheistic objections against Christianity. Especially since some argue that the Trinity is a Neoplatonist doctrine that was introduced by Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr due to their education of Neoplatonism in philosophy as well as suggesting Tertullian was also affected by such thinking in Carthage. Although, some may not see this as a problem and would have to demonstrate why Neoplatonism is false since people like Craig A. Carter who has argued for Christian Neoplatonism being both biblical and historical to the Church.
Regarding his critique of Augustine's view of infants going to hell if they weren't baptized, this is something that could warrant some form of biblical support since the bible teaches "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16) and "baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21) so clearly. Furthermore, the Nicene Creed might affirm this when we say that we believe in "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Thus, it's good to get your children baptized into the Covenant of Chris. Although, I wouldn't necessarily agree with Augustine, I wouldn't say this is a problematic view since Church Fathers before Augustine held to this idea as well. However, maybe there will be a future article on the case for infant baptism.
The second point that I would take issue with is the problem of caring about more important issues regarding God as well as the doctrine of the Church. Many like to use this approach towards Calvinism to suggest that Calvinists teach a different God than the God of scripture by saying God is wicked because he causes sin, only saves a few as opposed to the whole world, makes preaching of the gospel unnecessary, etc. based on their understanding of Calvinism. However, I would argue that if these things distort or make Calvinism affirm a false God, than this logic can literally be applied to EVERY SINGLE THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE!
For example, consider the Holy Eucharist at church every Lord's Day. Not all the churches in the Protestant tradition, such as certain non-denominational and Baptist churches, consider the Real Presence view of the Eucharist or even practice it every Sunday. While it seems Warren McGrew adheres to a Real Presence view, some of his followers that I have encountered with do not. Which leads me to a question for him and others in his camp (including Leighton Flowers and Provisionist Perspective): Would the lack of affirming Real Presence or participating in the practice every single Sunday be cause enough to consider one a heretic? Especially since this deals with the New Testament teachings with Jesus and Paul both calling these elements the body and blood of Jesus Christ (Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:18-20, 1 Corinthians 10:16). One could argue if they reject the Real Presence view, then they turn Jesus, who is God, into a liar and thus making God no longer a sinless sacrifice for humanity.
Another point is regarding the issue of Baptism in regards to the subject of Baptismal Regeneration, a doctrine which teaches according to the Episcopal Dictionary of the Church that "at baptism the candidates are not only initiated into the Christian community but are also “born again.” That is, the Holy Spirit pours upon them the gift of new life... Like the transformation of bread into the body of Christ at the eucharist, baptismal new life is “spiritually” discerned. The transformation of the baptized persons into participants in the risen life of Christ is not seen with ordinary vision. This transformation is seen with eyes opened by the Spirit." We can see cases where Baptism is defined as something that "saves" the sinner (John 3:5-7, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21), which makes this an issue regarding the teaching on the doctrine of salvation in the same way that the Calvinist and non-Calvinist views of Atonement differ. So if one doesn't affirm the baptism saves, which would be really important if infant baptism was taught (which it was by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, John Chrysostom, etc. long before Augustine). This could then be argued that either side in this heated debate is considered preaching a false gospel since we are discussing whether or not baptism saves us. Would infant baptists be in danger of going to hell under the view of these non-Calvinists?
A final issue to address in doctrinal division is one that even I used to be hotly against and that is the doctrine of Christian fasting, especially when the season of Lent hits around for the 40 day fast. Not every Christian practices the discipline of fasting, although you can find it practiced among Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Methodists and Presbyterians. Some would refer to Christian fasting to be something that is considered a "papist" tradition started by the Roman Catholic church and that there is no biblical mandate for fasting. Despite Jesus' words on it in Matthew 6, we also see fasting would imitate Jesus' fasting for 40 days in the wilderness as well as Moses 40 day fasting. Plus, it was essential in Acts for the early church to utilize prayer and fasting while appointing leadership over churches. Plus Acts 13:2-3 shows that several Christians were "worshiping the Lord and fasting" and thus demonstrates a way to practice it is permissible, if not mandatory based on the other passages of Scripture. Should we consider those who do not fast as non-Christians or people that make Jesus somebody we shouldn't listen to when it comes to fasting?
The point addressed is simply that these are issues which are among the issue of adiaphora, or theological triage as others have called it. They are not differences worth splitting the church over. Unfortunately, I have seen this in the case of one anti-Calvinist by the name of Tim Stratton, who I talked about before. I mentioned how I feared he would call Calvinists non-Christians and heretics in the future. Well, Tim managed to do just that on his social media when the question was pushed and his admitted reasons that he stated were not ones of biblical or church tradition reasons, but that instead it was simply mere philosophy that he came to this conclusion. He had no problem essentially, in dividing up the body of Christ by calling heresy or non-Christian, something that would never have been considered such in the first six centuries of the Christian Church.
Another issue that I would take with this is that it hurts the Church by becoming an exclusive institution as opposed to an inclusive one. Everyone has different beliefs to a degree without division. What I see from McGrew, Drew, Eric, Tim and many others is that of John in Mark 9:38-41 where we read the following: "John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward." It is essentially people wanting to stop others outside of their denomination or thought to be welcomed into the Church, which is something Jesus clearly disapproves of.
I see that it becomes more of an extremist side to gatekeeping in the Christian Church. One that extends past the Christianity taught by the Apostle's, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds which affirms the essential doctrines of The Triune God, The Incarnation of Jesus Christ, The Hypostatic Union, The Resurrection, The Atonement, The Universal (catholic) Church, Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and the Afterlife. None of these early ecumenical creeds in the church that Christians accept do not touch on anything regarding Calvinism's doctrines as essentials or heresies. Neither do the first seven ecumenical councils of the Church address these either. What these would be considered is, as Gavin Ortlund refers to in his book called "Finding the Right Hills to Die On", a third rank doctrine. Third rank doctrines are essentially doctrines which are important because they affect Christian theology in a way similar to one's view of Creation is held (such as Young Earth, Old Earth or Theistic Evolutionary Creationism) as well as one's view of the millennium that is discussed in Revelation. We can essentially still fellowship and be considered Christians who adhere to Christian doctrine and worship the same God while having different doctrines.
My final issue is that it becomes more so a way to butcher Christ's body brutally and have Satan watching us from the background in joy at what people like Provisionist Perspective, Warren McGrew and Tim Stratton do along with those who they influence as followers. 1 Corinthians 1:10 teaches us to "be in agreement and that there be no divisions" as well as to "be knit together in the same mind and the same purpose." Ephesians 4:3 teaches that we are to make "every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." The unity and diversity taught in Romans 12:4-5 teach that "For as in one body we have many members and not all the members have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another." Jesus even prayed in John 17:23 that we as Christians "may become completely one." Why should he pray this? Well he explains that it is "so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." So in order to let the world know that Christ was sent by God and that we are loved by God, we are to be in unity.
While there are certainly some Calvinists like James R. White and others in their camp who are notorious for causing massive divisions on issues like Thomism, there is essentially doctrinal sectarianism among the anti-Calvinists to the point that it seems very exclusive to a strange level of either cultic or ecumenical to the point of finding salvation outside of Christ. The worst part of this can be examined in an analogy. Imagine there are two arms which do their own tasks uniquely that contribute to the body. One day, the right arm doesn't agree with the stuff that the left arm did such as certain things it wrote or what it picked up to insert into the body's mouth. The right arm soon goes to try and pull the left arm off, but the right arm is resisted against and the left arm is supported by other members of the body. Then the right arm goes to use an object outside of the body such as a butcher knife or a saw in order to chop the left arm brutally off. It is now no longer part of the body. It has been forcibly removed, but at the cost of the loss of blood in which the body is now dying. It won't take time either as the right arm preaches to the rest of the body that it is saving the body from the left hand's harm. The other members slowly start to believe and agree, thinking nothing should be done as the body slowly dies to it's eventual end. The body has died, because the other members fought each other. This is what is being done when people the church fights against itself here. This is what The Idol Killer, Provisionist Perspective, Tim Stratton and others accomplish in their crusade.
I take major issue with people considering people anathema for reasons that are not even in line with the history of the church, let alone the Bible. Instead of discussing the falsehood of Islam with it's unitarian presuppositions and teachings of Muhammad, we are seeing Calvinism condemned as demonic. Instead of engaging with the atheist community's newest arguments that are popular such as the Meager Moral Fruits argument and the Logical Problem of the Trinity, we see only engaging with debates on total depravity and whether or not it is considered a doctrine of demons. Whenever the people leave the faith for something like Islam, Atheism, Hinduism, Polytheism, etc. and a curiosity as to why they left is brought up, they must automatically blame Calvinism as they did for quite a while. There was even a friend I used to have before I had to cut that friendship up where he claimed that Calvinists who became atheists were never really Christians and were lying to infiltrate the Church. It was truly a sad thing to see that people, like Provisionist Perspective, were sharing around the ideas of this hyper paranoia of mass conspiracy theories like the Calvinists were infiltrating the church to take over, despite this could literally be applied to every theological person (such as Molinists enter the church and will teach Molinism or baptismal regeneration adherents will infiltrate a church to teach baptismal regeneration). It is a new age of fear mongering and mass hysteria being incited by a new generation of Christians. Ones who have not even studied Church history to avoid repeating the mistakes.
It also makes the Christian faith become nothing more than a joke and a laughing stock to the non-Christians. They will be hindered from the gospel message because they will not see it in us since the Church is so divided. They will view us as merely "Christians" by name and that we do not practice the teachings of Jesus as taught in the New Testament. They will see us as not peacemakers, but as people opposed to peace in Christ. They will not see us as a united and catholic church, but as a divided and arrogant Church. This will not seem as a welcoming environment to the people who want to become Christian. I have even had people tell me that they want to become Christian, but they cannot join when they see so much arguing and division among other Christians. This is the kind of harm and damage that people who are anti-Calvinists are contributing to and joining.
I find this time to be one of grief since these are Christians who usually don't see a problem with division and in fact will incite this division as a cheerful and glorious thing. I have no hatred or ill will towards them, but I do pray for their repentance and I pray for the unity of peace in the church. We already have enough harmful division where people are dividing over the practices of certain holidays, splitting the church up with ethnicity or nationality as a way to promote nationalist ideas, and even causing heartaches by doubting somebody's faith and salvation simply based on which president we voted for. It is a painful sight to see and I pray that these Christians in the Church repent and put their petty differences aside as well as their pride. Let us pray for the unity of the Church.
O God, our heavenly Father, whose blessed Son came to bring us all into one family in you: We pray for the unity of the church in the world. Help us to seek to heal the divisions which keep us from one another and weaken our efforts to extend your kingdom on earth. Give us understanding of other people's points of view, save us from prejudice, and grant that as we see clearly our Savior's will that his church may be one, so we may labor in love to bring it to pass. Amen.
- Prayers for All Occasions, (p. 90)
Lord Jesus Christ, who prayed that all your children might be one: We pray for the restoration of unity in your church. Forgive the pride and suspicion which have driven us apart. Take away our narrow-mindedness, our bitterness, our prejudice, our inability to see you in the face of our brother. May we never consider as normal the disunity which is a scandal to the world and an affront to your love. Teach us to recognize the gifts of your grace in all who call upon your through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
- from the Reformed Church Liturgy, found in the Prayers For All Occasions (p. 91)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment