Satan's Favorite Controversy: Episcopalian Response to #BaalGate

     Warren McGrew of the channel Idol Killer has had no stranger to controversies. From agreeing with somebody accusing another of being a p*dophile without any proof or accusing me of being mentally unwell and struggling with my sexuality (both of which are false claims), Warren has continued to enjoy the attention from violating the ninth commandment by bearing false witness. However, this controversy is now charged very much more by just appealing to emotions and not necessarily an issue of accuracy. What happens when you accuse Calvinists who affirm the doctrine of infant damnation of having the same spirit of Baal worship? Well, you get the controversial #BaalGate controversy on social media, especially YouTube and X. I will give my two thoughts on it as somebody who does not affirm Calvinism nor do I adhere to a doctrine of infant damnation (even when I used to be a Calvinist).

    When it all started, it was a livestream that Leighton Flowers started on November 16, 2023 as it was about a round table discussion with Provisionists, including infamous Warren McGrew. There at 1:45:35 we see Warren say the following "I just want to highlight how that is the same kind of spirit and mindset that the ancient worshippers of pagan deities would engage in when they sacrifice their children to Baal." What is the reference here to? It is in reference to a point that Dr. Flowers brought up with the doctrine of infants possibly being elected unto damnation as reprobates where the comparison is to the child sacrifice practices among Canaanite worship. While I have my disagreement with infant damnation and possibly agree with Leighton Flowers and Warren McGrew's position on infants being saved (unsure exactly what their particular position fully is), I cannot say that those who affirm infant damnation are acting with the same spirit as Baal worship. To suggest such a thing is not only dishonest, but it is just simply an appeal to emotions here without trying to engage in the subject rationally.

    Fortunately, this controversy happened after I already left Calvinism, but it starts to make me wonder what exactly is the mindset in these Anti-Calvinists which causes them to basically act like some radical version of the "cancel culture" folks where instead of calling somebody a n*zi, we see the accusations of another emotional call out word. If you notice the language, he says that it is the same spirit of Baal worship. He even goes futher to say "'because as long as I get my good crops, I am willing to throw my child on the pyre...' It is the same mindset where 'God may have eternally reprobated my child, but as long as I get to heaven, I am cool with that.'" I want to point out a theory that I have, because I do not think this is an accurate comparison since he compares getting good crops and material wealth with the idea of letting the child burn so they can get to heaven. This sounds like an analogy my priest one time brought up with Islam where Sahih Muslim, Book 50, Hadith 60 tells us the following:

    "There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians." While not discussing infants or election, the idea seems much more closer based on this. I think Warren is either unaware of this hadith, but if he is, then I think it would be much better a comparison to Islam and try something like #AllahGate or something like that, but I don't think he will try that. Either because he isn't that well learned in it or he doesn't want to have the pressure of having to deal with Muslim apologists who then will also start to come after them (especially since Muslim social media is quick to observe these things). But this is just simply a theory and I wonder why a more accurate (yet still not true) description could've been used. I mostly think Warren is just trying to stir up emotions here for shock value and not truth value.

    The reason I cannot condemn this view as something in that same spirit, especially since Augustine affirmed it without there being much of an issue by the Early Church Fathers. Though Warren might attempt a historical revisionist route like Dan Brown does and argue he corrupted the Church. Augustine mostly made this argument of infant damnation based on one thing: infant baptism. He was teaching on the idea that in order for infants to be saved, they must be baptized. Even moreso, Augustine argued in his Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love in the 93rd chapter that "the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sin they brought with them." The Roman Catholic theologians in the medieval period would eventually suggest that he is referring to limbo here. However, the question then must be asked on if this teaching of possible infant damnation and therefore, infant baptism, was taught before Augustine? Yes!

    Origen, though a universalist and heretic, was at least an ecclesiastical writer like Tertullian. So there is still some benefits found in his words and writings. In his 8th Homily on Leviticus, we read the following: "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin... In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." So we see that the grace of baptism was needed for infants, especially for the remission of sins.

    Next, we read from Cyprian of Carthage, who in his 58th Epistle wrote to a man named Fidus who disagreed with the teaching of having a newborn infant immediately baptized. In the letter, Cyprian responds in the 2nd section with "in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them," [Luke 4:56] as far as we can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost." So not only do we see this was of an opinion to be taken by the council of Christians at a council of Carthage, but it was also trying to highlight Luke 4:56 with the premise that baptism was to act as a way to save these infants through the baptism. What would be the logical consequence if the baptism, which saves, didn't wash them?

    In the 5th section of the same epistle, we read Cyprian saying "if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another." Here we see the idea of the teaching found in Matthew 19:14, not wanting to forbid the grace of God in the sacrament of baptism to the infants. Not only that, but pointing out an idea about how a baby was born not having sinned, except in that they contracted the contagion of sin from Adam.

    Gregory of Nazianzus, a church father whom Warren quotes often regarding an interpretation of Hebrews 2:14-18. In his letter to Cledonius, we read the following: "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." Warren likes to use this along with the passage where Christ is to be made like us "in every respect" to suggest a refutation of some form of a sinful nature which we are born with.

    Yet, if we read Gregory's Oration on Holy Baptism, we read the following: "Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith!" So we see a clear command here for the need to get the child sanctified through baptism as an infant very early on. Elsewhere in the Oration, we read this: "Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." We should baptism if any danger presses. Why? Because it is better they are unconscious and sanctified through the saving power of baptism instead of departing this world "unsealed" and "uninitiated." What does this mean?

    If we read back a bit in Gregory's Oration on Holy Baptism, we read that "in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish... the third [infants or involuntary] will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished." Some may read this and think there is no sign of possible infant damnation here. One could however just take this idea of unsealed, which is being described as something normally the wicked are, being something that doesn't necessarily mean damned. What we read is a sort of minimal punishment or purgatory doctrine found similar to what Augustine taught earlier. Hence why there is similarity and unity in this area between both of Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine of Hippo.

    However, I could touch on one aspect which is to be noted on baptism in light of Matthew 19:14 and other passages which promises baptism for infants in the promise of the covenant. We read in 1 Peter 3:18-22 which teaches the following: "For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight lives, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him."

    We see that baptism with water, in some way, saves us. So when we apply this water to infants, it saves them somehow. You can debate on what exactly is meant here by that water in baptism and how exactly it saves, but nobody can deny this principle of baptism found here when it comes to the idea of salvation found. I think it was a key principle in the baptism doctrine which was behind Augustine's view of infant damnation. I do not agree with his doctrine just as I do not agree with Cyprian and Gregory, but I do believe these are great men whose interpretations of infants would be met with the same ridicule over today by Anti-Calvinists.

    The other problem with BaalGate is that it is done without the Holy Spirit in mind here. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 teaches that "the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." If one thinks somebody is in error, then they must correct them kindly without being too quarrelsome. They must also be patient and correct opponents with gentleness. We all sin like this at times, even I have been guilty of that. However, Warren does not show any signs of repentance. In fact, in one video where Warren was issuing a supposed apology where he mentions people critiquing this harsh phrase he used. He then says the following at 7:45 with the following: "I do want to apologize. I am sincerely wrong that I did not use harsher terms to condemn it. Like noting it's the spirit of Anti-Christ and that it's contrary to the God of scripture. That's okay. I am allowed to criticize. I am allowed to challenge." This is not what the issue is. Nobody is saying Warren can't criticize Calvinism, just to do it without dividing the body of Christ as he just did by suggesting implicitly that Calvinists aren't Christians.

    This frustrates me a bit because he's taken my criticism of him in the past as if somehow, I am saying nobody can criticize Calvinism. If anybody read my article on Calvinism where I critique it, they would see I am not suggesting Calvinism is free from criticism. There is however a means in which we can criticize without being jerks who adopt the spirit of Anti-Christ like Warren and his followers do. It is especially stronger in his fans who imitate him on social media. In fact, we read Galatians 5:19-21, we read the following: "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: ... enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions... I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Yet read Galatians 5:22-23, we read that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." We do not see the majority of these things from Warren when it comes to peace, patience, kindness, generosity, gentleness and self-control. If any is shown, then there is no sign of repentance for the past sins committed.

    Romans 12:10 tells us to "love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor." Titus 2:6-8 teaches us "to be self-controlled in all things, offering yourself as a model of good works and in your teaching offering integrity, gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured; then any opponent will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us." 1 Peter 3:15-16 tells Christians, especially the apologists, to "sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect. Maintain a good conscience so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame." These qualities of gentleness, respect, self-control and honor with love is lacking in the words found in Warren and his group.

    Some may object and say "well Jesus called the Pharisees names like serpents, blind guides and hypocrites? Wasn't He cruel and mocking them?" This is something that I see many try to use to justify sinning according to Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5:4-5, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, etc. and it gets tiresome to see repeated. The reason why Jesus could say it but we can't is for the same reason why we do not have the power to atone for sins, yet he could. How Jesus could turn water into wine, but we can't. The issue is about the authority that Jesus had and that was unique to him, especially as a prophet. We are not prophets who have been revealed some new divine revelation for today, since the canon is closed. So whenever I hear somebody use this argument, my response is simply: Go carry a cross and die for our sins if you really want to believe in this consistently. Otherwise, do not claim this if you do not wish to carry that authority that only Christ had.

    The ultimate issue that arises from this entire controversy is simple: a hatred for the unity of the church. Whenever somebody asks about if they consider Calvinists to be Christians, they will perform double speak by suggesting they are, yet calling Calvinistic beliefs "satanic." They will refer to Calvinism as a "false gospel" regarding the doctrine of Limited Atonement. They have said that Calvinism has the spirit of "Anti-Christ." If you have a false gospel, hold to satanic beliefs and have the spirit of Anti-Christ, then you are not a Christian. This is hypocrisy and double speak at it's finest.

    If these people do consider Calvinists to be Christians, then why isn't there more effort for unity for the sake of going after other groups like atheists and Muslims? Why not work on a more unified point of universality in ministry based on the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed as well as the Athanasian Creed, the three key ecumenical texts of Christianity today. It would be more beneficial to demonstrate actual church unity for the Christian faith. However, either Warren and some of his followers and associates do not seek or desire unity or they do not view them as Christians who need to be in the same platform or ministry work of evangelism.

    My final point will be this: What does doing this do that is considered beneficial or glorifying to God? If the answer is to try and remove falsehood, then do not make a single object the focus of your obsession? Deal with other falsehoods like Iconoclasm, Nestorianism, Unitarianism, Atheism, Islam, etc. as well as deal with things that are harmful and evil such as children being groomed and sexualized, promotions of hate and chaos, as well as even wishing to get rid of Christianity from the public. The only way to truly accomplish this is when we achieve unity, but not carnal and sinful attitudes with worldliness as the philosophy which gets masked as "Christian." It adopts secular behavior of the 21st century with a veil over it.

    May God seek to change our hearts and end this controversy which does nothing but appeal to Satan as he is enjoying the controversy being started and wishes for it to never end so that Christians can be fighting each other and trying to destroy the church from within by causing a civil war. It aims to remove the universality and unity of the church by drawing on the sin of hatred instead of the fruit of love, unity and peace. May God create in us clean hearts and renew a right spirit within us. Amen.

My Five Problems With Calvinism: An Anglican Critique

    The theology of Calvinism has been summed up by my priest as the following: "Calvinism is what happens when you let lawyers do theology." While I may not agree with the use of the phrase, it started to let me realize that there was much more to Calvinism these days. If you don't know, I wrote an article a while back on how I am no longer a Calvinist due to some issues I had with the theology after studying church history, becoming part of the Episcopal Church and getting more in touch with the Bible. I do not forget nor am I unthankful for my time as a Calvinist, but I must be aware of the issues that do arise from this theology that make me no longer adhere to this system.

    My issue of the critique is not necessarily just with the system of Calvinism itself, but also the church members who have now grown to become some of the well spoken representatives of it today. This includes people such as James R. White, Steven Lawson, Voddie Baucham, Joel Webbon, Jeff Durbin and others who have helped to become not just merely Calvinists, but also the representatives of Calvinism. My issue is that these gentlemen and the people they have influenced have become moreso a danger not just to Christianity, but also to become a danger to Calvinism as well. I think if we didn't get their current popularity and attitude, Calvinism might be at a much better place in the history of the Church.

    Another point I will make is that the issue deals also with their handling and understanding of subjects that also brings about people like The Idol Killer and Provisionist Perspective that have attempted to not just engage in historical revisionism of the church, but also to engage in sinful acts without repentance that have caused them to appeal to the Calvinists as a justification of their doctrine. Let us begin the criticism of Calvinism

1. Limited Atonement

    Limited Atonement is probably one of the most controversial of the doctrines even among other Calvinists such as Norman Geisler. Limited Atonement is easily defined as the doctrine in which God has not died for the whole world, but only for the elect of God. This has led the Canons of Dort to define as an error those who "teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual."

    My problem is not necessarily with the elements of Christ dying for a limited case, since I at least appeal that Christ died for the Church, in which the members of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church are of the elect, which puts it into a perspective of a corporate election. However, the problem with Limited Atonement may be seen in trying to engage with some apologetic responses to some passages. We can affirm John 3:16 which teaches the following: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." The issue with this passage is in the emphasis on Calvinists also quoting Romans 9 and others to refer to some like Esau being hated or that God hates sinners (Psalm 5:5). The problem here is that if one wishes to use this to show that God hates, then it falls into a logical inconsistency with John 3:16. Some respond that God loving the world or "god loves the world in this way" refers to God loving all kinds of people by ethnicity and gender. The problem is that this means there is elect among the world, but then there is still some that God would "hate" based on their argument.

    Another issue comes from an interpretation usually adopted by some of the cage stage Calvinists, a set of Calvinists who are so new to it and will fight tooth and nail to defend Calvinism as the ultimate Christian doctrine. A. W. Pink, a Calvinist Bible teacher, once wrote the following on his interpretation of John 3:16's use of the word "world": "In 2 Peter 2:5, we read of "the world of the ungodly." If then, there is a world of the ungodly; there must also be a world of the godly." The problem with this is that this is not found in Thayer's Greek Lexicon or many of the other recent lexicons of the word "kosmos" in the Koine Greek text. Luckily, many Calvinists have done their best to abandon this argument, but an "elect" few have decided to keep to using this very dated and debunked argument.

    Limited Atonement has, in my opinion, a stumbling block for the open air preacher personally. I will say that I do not see Limited Atonement as a false gospel or a means to suggest an inconsistency in preaching to everybody. The Canons of Dort do state that "it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel." However, my one complaint is on how the preacher must then word the Gospel. When I street preached, I didn't really struggle that much, but I did have to be careful of saying "Christ died for you" because I didn't know that for sure under the Limited Atonement theory. I think this can be even more problematic if somebody needing comfort needs to know this as a way to come to Christ.

    Limited Atonement finds itself in a situation where while it can be found among some early church fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Lactantius for example), there are also other fathers who did not ascribe to this particular doctrine. Which leads me to my next point.

2. Consistent Historical Attestation

    When it comes to the doctrines of Calvinism, there isn't much affirmation of the five points of Calvinism consistently and this is something I struggled with when beginning my inquiry to the early church fathers. One could find areas of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints in Clement of Rome, but not much on Irresistible Grace or Unconditional Election. The same can be applied for the doctrine of Limited Atonement lacking in Athanasius of Alexandria, while he still adhered to certain elements of Calvinistic predestination and Total Depravity. However, the issue is that there is no consistent pattern of full blown five point Calvinism of the key doctrines.

    I will point out that even Augustine, who many like to claim is the inventor of Calvinism, is not even really a Calvinist. If one reads Augustine truly, they will see that he affirmed free will theology that seems contrary to Total Depravity as well as he does not seem to affirm Limited Atonement. It truly does boggle my mind how many want to pin him as one, including the Anti-Calvinists who paint him as such because I guess it seems easier? Really unsure of what kind of points they are trying to score here.

    Furthermore, this is what has helped to become a big issue for me in determining what my particular soteriology should be? I like to consider my view to be a unique blending and mixing of both Arminianism and Calvinism since you can find a mix of both in the writings of the early church fathers (including Augustine). I cannot say the same for Molinism since there was no discussion of the topic of Middle Knowledge as a concept or a particular doctrine until around the time of Molina. Same thing for Open Theism since the doctrines of Open Theism admit themselves to being focused on being newer innovations rooted in being opposed to Classical Theism. Some have suggested Open Theism may have doctrines similar to Gnosticism or polytheism, but I am not going to make any accusations or inquiries on that yet.

    Calvinists might raise an objection to this and go "Calvinism can be found partially in all of the early fathers which means the five points are proven to be orthodox in history." That might be correct, but the same is for Arminianism too. Hence, my issue would be in the idea of Calvinism being unable to prove itself consistently. Which is why I do not think four point Calvinism or even a hypothetical lower point holding of Calvinism is inconsistent or problematic anymore. I would hence just simply call my soteriology Anglican or Episcopalian, especially the latter due to the flexibility of doctrinal affirmations.

    Another go to argument would be "who cares about the church fathers since it's scripture that matters." While I do affirm Sola Scriptura, we need to be considering tradition as the early reformers did since that was the purpose of the Reformation, not just to be consistent with scripture, but also tradition. In fact, even the Westminster of Confession's first chapter says that "all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined." We are to test these things with scripture, but we should be familiar with them and examine them. Furthermore, to disregard the early church fathers is to be comfortable with the idea that our doctrine is a brand new invention and interpretation when the idea of the reformers is to suggest it isn't an invention, but a historic doctrine.

3. Permitting Heresy

    This is a really serious issue since the problem of rejecting many discussions on Mary or statements on her in the confessions and creeds of Calvinism have led there to be several Calvinist teachers to be espousing heresy. Not that Calvinism itself is a heresy, but that there is heresy among many of it's strongest advocates due to the lack of doctrinal binding in the creeds and confessions of the Calvinists exclusively. Certain examples of this include the idea of Nestorianism and especially Iconoclasm. We discussed Iconoclasm in the previous article, but Nestorianism is the rejection of Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God) because Mary did not give birth to the divine. Iconoclasm is something which is really important in this case since John Calvin (although not the founder of Calvinism, is very significant to it's theology) had made it clear that he rejected the use of icons. Luckily, several small voices in the Calvinist ranks are calling for a renunciation of this heresy among their ranks.

    For Nestorianism, we look no further than with John MacArthur, a popular Calvinist bible teacher and pastor. In one sermon entitled "The Blood of Christ," we read that he says the following: "One pastor said to me, “He had the blood of God.” I said, “What is the blood of God?” He said, “Divine blood.” I said, “God is a spirit, that was the blood of Christ, that was the blood of a man, He was one hundred percent man.” It’s heretical to call the blood of Jesus Christ the blood of God, and it demonstrates a failure to understand what theologians have called the hypostatic union, that is the God-man union in Christ." What John MacArthur is doing is an actual failure to understand the hypostatic union because Nestorious made a similar claim and was opposed to the hypostatic union by making an extreme distinction of Christ into two persons of Christ, not two natures. Furthermore, we have the following in "Exposing the Idolatry of Mary Worship" where we read: "In fact, Roman Catholics refer to her as Theotokos, God-bearer. They say she gave birth to God and thus is to be elevated and adored. She gave birth to God. That is a terrible misconception.  She gave birth to Jesus in his humanity. She did not give birth to God. God was never born." This goes contrary to not just the Bible with the deity of Christ, but even goes contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity as laid out in the Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed and Chalcedonian Definition. Favoring, instead, the heresy condemned at the Council of Ephesus.

    Calvinism also has a strong room for permission for a classical heresy known as Iconoclasm. In fact, John Calvin was very much in favor of Iconoclasm and didn't just want there to be no icons, but even the lack of any Christian art and symbols were to be removed. This to me shows that there is a reason why there is not much on the doctrines of iconography or Christian art found in the Calvinist writings since it does not want to have to affirm officially the statement of heresy condemned at the Second Council of Nicaea. The fact that we can just permit this to go by as if it isn't heresy while still permitting the accusation of Pelagianism just baffles my mind. Speaking of, this leads to my next problem.

4. Misunderstanding Actual Heresy

    I remember the days where we just literally threw the accusation of Pelagianism towards anything teaching synergism or free will just because that was what we were taught on what was actually Pelagianism. Pelagianism is moreso dealing with a heresy of teaching sinless perfectionism where people were born sinless and can therefore live a life of sinless living without ever committing any sins (despite him admitting nobody during his time was sinless, including himself). While I plan to do an article refuting Pelagianism, I will hold my critiques for this heresy and the heretic who taught it for now.

    However, because of this constant false alarm being called by several Calvinists from the old to the new, we now see the rise of a very Anti-Calvinist movement of historical revisionism by people like Idol Killer and Provisionist Perspective as well as Leighton Flowers who even uses the accusation of the Boogeyman Fallacy on the modern accusation of Pelagianism (despite the Boogeyman Fallacy not even being an actual fallacy). While it is a shame that these people have tried to go towards a historical revisionist route, I have to put the blame on the Calvinists too for also getting history wrong with Pelagianism.

    It shows how Calvinism has a historical literacy problem where we aren't familiar with church history enough that we just make blatant accusations in the same way that people will throw around the n*zi term without any understanding of what the actual context of that term is. I find it problematic that Calvinists are going to have an issue with people citing early church fathers, while yet they cite early church fathers and traditions to condemn others of Pelagianism while clearly not having actually studied what this is.

    Pelagianism is certainly heresy because Pelagius taught that everybody is born without a sinful nature and thus everybody is born sinless and we can live without sin. This not only is heresy by the sense of the tradition, but it also goes contrary to what 1 John teaches in the first two chapters, especially when it says if "we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This is an issue that we clearly must deal with. While this is a key issue, Calvinists do not focus on this point as much.

5. Calvinism Is Represented By Bad Faces

    This is moreso a personal issue where it gets Calvinism a bad light in our current time. We have several popular faces who are making not only bad arguments for their view of Christianity, but they will be trying to divide the body of Christ unnecessarily in the same level that the Anti-Calvinists do. They bring about mere polemics and even worldly ways of behaving and speaking to address their points instead of sound biblical arguments or even properly defining words. I cannot tell you how bad it is that I hear the word sovereign and hear Calvinists act like they have a monopoly on the term. Similar to how Roman Catholics try to have a monopoly over the term "catholic." I will address a few of these people right now.

    The first one is one who had a big impact on me and that would be James R. White. I was inspired by his approach towards New Testament Textual Criticism and his debates where he was very biblical in his approach. However, the thing I was unaware of was the eventual change and growth to the polemical nature of his ministry that mirrored that of his previous opposition in discussions or debates like with Steven Anderson and Bob Wilkins. Even worse, White started to critique Classical Theism proponents as "Reformed Thomists" and even start to promote ideas of the Trinity and the Incarnation that come across as possibly heretical such as accusations of affirming kenosis. He also would fall in line with others like Doug Wilson in trying to promote a biblically inconsistent view of Christian Nationalism as if it is either Christian Nationalism or "you are for the world and against Christ." It just leads to a bad representation of Calvinism by adopting things outside of Calvinism and claiming it to be part of Calvinistic core beliefs.

    Steven Lawson is somebody who has been very much interesting to hear from in the past, but has gotten a bit more cocky with attacking free will as something that it isn't. He is known for having said that free will is a pagan goddess that the Church has worshipped for far too long. This is just sad, especially since he does admit free will is at least a concept in Calvinism and I agree with that. However, just because one adhered to a system of free will theology in their beliefs, it doesn't mean they are automatically worshipping a false god. This is on the same level as Charles Spurgeon's notorious "Calvinism is the Gospel" quote. It just divides the church up and leaves the impression that Calvinism alone is Christianity while others aren't. Anybody justifying the quote to excuse it to mean "not that serious" is on the same level of dishonesty as Warren McGrew of Idol Killer with their claims on Calvinists.

    Jeff Durbin has been one who has helped introduce a sort of applied street level version of Presuppositional Apologetics which has been a great way to introduce it to the layman, but I take issue with the his emphasis on theonomy lately. Theonomy is a Calvinist originated doctrine which doesn't fall with every Calvinist, but this person along with others have tried to apply theonomy (and Christian Nationalism as a whole) into the mandatory way of belief into being a Christian. Even choosing to employ a false dichotomy that I mentioned in my critique of James White. It also doesn't help that he has fallen into the problem of critiquing the "He Gets Us" ad for just nitpicky and assumed issues that aren't even being addressed in the ad. It's a sign of Jeff and others like him growing from being rooted in the Bible to eventually being rooted in the culture. Plus I find it that he has issues with people washing feet despite I have encountered people handing out his tracts and material offering to wash the feet of folks outside places of sin.

    Joel Webbon is somebody who is guilty, again, of the Christian Nationalism adoption that folks are trying to adhere to. However, he seems to address trying to focus on what he might define as biblical manhood by suggesting things that aren't taught in scripture and are explicitly cultural things. I cover this phenomena in another article I wrote a while back. However, that isn't the main issue as well. There also seems to be a form of sectarianism found among his videos when it comes to Calvinism, especially when it comes to Presbyterianism vs Reformed Baptists. It just really baffles me on how some will try to leave room for a possibility of a theological civil war.

    Voddie Baucham I think would fit among the most controversial for his own reasons. Voddie will try to downplay any non-Presuppositional Apologetics as forsaking the Bible and becoming non-Christian, viewing Classical and Evidential Apologetics as being things which are non-Christian ultimately. Another issue is trying to accuse the depiction of Jesus in The Chosen and other Christian media as breaking the 2nd commandment, despite this is just him not understanding what the 2nd Commandment is and just engaging in the heresy of Iconoclasm. Furthermore, there is some speculation on his "Fault Lines" book containing plagiarism, which is a pretty bad thing especially from an atheist named James Lindsey. If we go by the logic of Voddie's critique of non-Christian means of apologetics, this would be a case of hypocrisy from the pastor.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

    When it comes to the situation, I do believe that Calvinists need much more better out there. Scholastic theology needs to be more out there and the actual understanding of the Reformation must be defended. Luckily there are good Calvinists out there like Gavin Ortlund, John M. Frame, Matthew Barrett and various others who adhere to a very consistent, patient and yet gentle approach to Calvinism. However, I do not think this deals with the other objections, but it would be a great start. I furthermore think that we need to allow the Church to be more interested in Church History as part of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, instead of relying and the faulty interpretation known as Solo Scriptura or Biblicism that the Roman Catholics like to accuse the Protestants of.

    I also think we need to have more dialogues than we do debates to focus on inner ecumenical conversations with other denominations within the Protestant spectrum. Maybe eventually it can lead to a good dialogue between Roman Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox (which I think will be beneficial for the Calvinists considering some similar beliefs). While I find the debates can be helpful, the Calvinist online culture has now decided to treat debates as this superior or only means of proper communication and dialogue with those outside of their tradition. This really needs to change.

    I also feel that the other Calvinists need to be held accountable by their peers so that they do not turn into people like James White and Voddie Baucham. It will also allow us to be able to catch people who begin to make false accusations against Calvinism as well as our Calvinist brethren who defend the Christian faith with passion and zeal along with their gentle Christian spirit. May we hope to strive and get this life of unity among the Church. Amen.

Venerating Images: A Defense of Icon Usage in Christianity

     So we have encountered a subject that is very controversial and is one that was very key to the last ecumenical council agreed upon and adopted by most Christians: Iconoclasm. Iconoclasm is an ancient Christian heresy that essentially affirms not just the rejection of, but the destruction of Christian art, statues and icons. It is rooted in a misunderstanding of the 2nd Commandment in the bible and I will aim to create a defense of the faith of this historic Christian practice to address those who wish to slander icon veneration. While there are some among the low church Protestants who have an issue with icon veneration, you will also find it among some Anglicans who are split about the issue while other Anglicans as well as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do support the use of icons.

    Among the sources I plan to utilize, I aim to argue not just from the Bible, but appeal to an extensive work published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press which is referred to as the Three Treatises On The Divine Images by St. John of Damascus that was translated by Andrew Louth. Furthermore, my main argument is not about making veneration of icons mandatory, but permissible. I also plan to engage with criticisms of icon veneration and address how they fall short of consistency.

    I shall start by a chief concern with this based on Exodus 20:4-6 as they are a citation of the 2nd Commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth.  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." Some rightly point out that this passage is a refutation directly against not merely the use of having icons as art, but to have them be used for bowing or veneration. The only problem is in the context of what an idol is.

    An idol is a false god, meaning it is something that is not deserving of worship. Hence why Tertullian in his treatise On Idolatry will say in Chapter 3 that "idolatry is "all attendance and service about every idol."" Idolatry is simply giving every form of service, dedication and attention of your day towards this thing when it only belongs to God. However, this is not the mindset proper when it comes to an icon and if the mindset is like this, then one needs to re-evaluate their view on an icon and what it truly is. If you have an art piece in your home that depicts Christ or if the icon is getting respect for it's qualities, there is not idolatrous about this particular thing.

    However, it is now time for some context into the debate which is going to take us to the 7th and 8th centuries where there was a divide in the church as a heresy named Iconoclasm entered the church. Iconoclasm is defined as "the smashing of icons." Essentially, you had the church divided between the east and the west regarding this matter. Let us take a look from page 7 of the book I mentioned earlier where Andrew Louth gives us an insight into the controversy:

    "In AD 726 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III ordered the destruction of icons, or religious images, throughout the Byzantine Empire. The reasons for this policy are not clear, for lack of firm evidence, though it seems that justification was sought in the allegation that the veneration of icons amounted to idolatry, in contravention of the second commandment. In 730 the Emperor took his policy of iconoclasm still further, issuing a formal edict and, when opposed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus I, requiring him to resign."

    There was an influence by Islam into the decision of the Iconoclasts in the Christian Church due to Islam's radical monotheism teachings and the forbidding of using images of people in their artwork. This influenced some in the church and especially in Leo III. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Iconoclasm, we read that Leo III "was also suspected of leanings towards Islam. The Khalifa Omar II (717-20) tried to convert him, without success except as far as persuading him that pictures are idols. The Christian enemies of images, notably Constantine of Nacolia, then easily gained his ear. The emperor came to the conclusion that images were the chief hindrance to the conversion of Jews and Moslems, the cause of superstition, weakness, and division in his empire, and opposed to the First Commandment. The campaign against images as part of a general reformation of the Church and State. Leo III's idea was to purify the Church, centralize it as much as possible under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and thereby strengthen and centralize the State of the empire. There was also a strong rationalistic tendency among there Iconoclast emperors, a reaction against the forms of Byzantine piety that became more pronounced each century. This rationalism helps to explain their hatred of monks. Once persuaded, Leo began to enforce his idea ruthlessly."

    So eventually Christians aligning with the ideas of Leo III and the Muslims were joining in the destruction of relics, monasteries and even destroying the corpses of dead saints. Gregory II, the bishop of Rome, explains to Leo that there was a difference between these images and the idols. There was no pushing for a council as Gregory just simply said that "all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing the peace of the Church." However, Leo would not give in and continue his assault on the church. Eventually, we reach to 787 AD for the Second Council of Nicaea where it condemned the Iconoclasm movement as heresy. However, during that gap in years to the council, tons of Christians were being killed over it and even churches were monasteries and artwork was destroyed.

    Now let's discuss the defense of icon usage by first appealing to the Bible. The main defense we appeal to is the distinction of worship vs veneration, which is simply explained in these terms: Veneration is simply respect and admiration, but worship is veneration exclusively for God. So there are times we venerate people, but not in a way where we view them as the ultimate authority or as God. John of Damascus tells us the following in the 14th section of his first treatise on images:

    "Veneration (bowing down) is a symbol of submission and honor. And we know different forms of this. The first is as a form of worship, which we offer to God, alone by nature worthy of veneration. Then there is the veneration offered, on account of God who is naturally venerated, to his friends and servants, as Jesus the son of Nave and Daniel venerated the angel; or to the places of God, as David said, "Let us venerate in the place, where his feet stood" or to things sacred to Him, as Israel venerated the tabernacle and the temple in Jerusalem standing in a circle around it, and then from everywhere bowing in veneration towards it, as they still do now, or to those rulers who had been ordained by Him, as Jacob venerated Esau, made by God the elder-born brother, or Pharaoh, appointed by God his ruler, and his brothers venerated Joseph. And I know that such veneration is offered to others as a mark of honor, as Abraham venerated the sons of Emmor. Either, therefore, reject all veneration or accept all of these forms with its proper reason and manner." (p. 27-28)

    We see a reference to the tabernacle, which leads to our main issue since we need to understand that the Bible does not contain actual contradictions. If you read verses such as Joshua 7:6 and Psalm 99:5 while keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant did contain images on it as well as in the tabernacle, we will understand that they bowed or venerated the creation, but not worship it. We also see other cases where people made images by the commands of the prophets. Such as Moses in Numbers 21:8-9 being told by God to make "a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live." Then we read the following in verse 9: "So Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it upon a pole, and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live." The serpent was clearly not God and was also something "in the form of anything that is... on the earth."

    Furthermore, we get a pretty lengthy quote up next from section 9 of the second treatise by John of Damascus. To add context to the quote, John is responding to the objection by appealing to Exodus 20:4-5 where John agrees with the passage, but points out a context that is relevant. However, he also notes an inconsistency in the argument by pointing out the following:

    "But these are the things that God commanded "they should make," it says: "the veil of the tabernacle of witness from aquamarine and porphyry and spun scarlet and twisted flax, woven work of the cherubim," and "they made the mercy seat above the ark and the two cherubim out of pure gold." What are you doing, Moses? You say, "You shall not make for yourself a carved [image] or any likeness, and you fashion the veil, "a woven work of cherubim" and "two cherubim out of pure gold"? But listen, what the servant of God, Moses, answers you in his works. O blind and foolish, understand the power of what is said "and take good heed to your souls.” I said, "that you saw no likeness on the day in which the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain in the midst of the fire, lest you act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved likeness, or any image," and "you shall not make for yourselves gods of cast metal." I did not say, You shall not make an image of the cherubim that stand as slaves beside the mercy seat, but “you shall not make for yourself gods of cast metal," and "you shall not make any likeness" as of God, nor shall you worship "the creation instead of the Creator." Therefore I did not make a likeness of God, nor of anything else as God, nor "did I worship the creation instead of the Creator."" (p. 65-66)

    Here we see that, as quoted in order, the verses of Exodus 36:8, 37:6-7; Deuteronomy 4:15-16 and Exodus 34:17 are cited as part of the case where there are examples of things having images made in a way that is pleasing to God without violating the second commandment. Which is showing so far that in light of the Old Testament context, we see various cases where images are able to be made and yet it isn't considered a violation for having them or venerating them. Especially if we go over Exodus 25:17-22 which has Moses being told to "make two cherubim of gold" for the ark of the covenant, which means these golden cherubim would be venerated as they prostrated before the ark in veneration.

    Now for the New Testament case of icon veneration. To be fair, there is not much that can be made here, but I will try my best to at least deal with another portion that is relevant to the controversy of the icons. Before the Incarnation of Christ, we are told about the God who cannot be seen. However, we do see God in the image of Christ. Hence John 1:18 saying "no one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." So the argument is that, especially as John of Damascus is known for, that because Christ came down as the divine image of God in human form which means that we can venerate images of the divine (Christ) since He is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15) and the worship of the actual physical God was able to be done.

    Another point is that of the saints, Christians who have passed on from this life and have joined into heaven with God. We affirm the doctrine of sanctification and state we are growing in holiness to God in the process of salvation. However, the question than becomes on what this all entails? Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that "all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit." So it says we are being transformed into the "same image" and from one "glory to another." We are essentially receiving the glory of God and adopt that divine glory in the form of sanctification. We are not God and we do not have any divine powers. It is that we are involved in the participation of this glory due to our full sanctification and being around God in heaven, just like when Moses' face was shining due to the glory of God being around him.

    You will find other passages like this such as Romans 8:29 where we as Christians are "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" and 1 Corinthians 15:49 says that just as "we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven." Furthermore, 1 John states that when Christ appears to us, "we will be like him, for we will see him as he is."

    Now what this shows is at least a biblical case for why one would want to use icons for either prayer or even times at worship depending. It is time now for me to point out an appeal to practical reasons why one should use an icon and focus on what can be biblically permissible. I will get rid of one thing and that is that WE SHOULD NOT PRAY TO AN ICON. Icons are not meant to be prayed to and honestly, that loses the actual intended function that they have.

    The one thing that an icon is good for teaching certain biblical lessons and even sharing the gospel with those who have yet to read the Bible or may even be illiterate. The images in icons are usually full of so much symbolism that they will help teach core elements of the Gospel. It was even used along with a cross that was carried to England during the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury's mission where he helped to even convert the king of England to Christianity. We can find that the beauty of the art does more than simply have a good appearance, but to even have a good teaching of the gospel for evangelism.

    Another useful point for the icon is in the use of worship. One Anglican website known as Anglican Compass has made the following good point: "In worship icons and visual depictions are mostly stationary and are not usually bowed to or kissed, etc. If a person does bow before a depiction, they are to be bowing in prayer to God, not to the depiction itself... This is good because human beings need symbols, images, and icons. We live in a world of texture, color, visual stimulation and dimensional reality. We love beauty and we are calmed and emotionally salved by it. As James K.A. Smith has pointed out, if we remove Christian symbolism and iconography, it will merely be replaced with secular or alternative religious iconography."

    When it comes to being a personal prayer tool at home for something like a prayer corner, you will find tons of beneficial usage here. When it comes to private prayer, the images are ways to help focus on God, especially with the icon of Christ. Even more so with other saints who we are inspired by such as some who are praying for humility may be reminded if they look at an icon of Peter or perhaps wanting to be brave by looking at an icon of Paul. There is all types of icons and even ones based on events and not people, which can really help for prayer during a particular season in the liturgical calendar.

    Icons also serve a purpose of art work that also shows the history of the church by showing all the different saints that exist and what their story is. Some aren't even written about that much and the main story we have is through oral tradition and the depiction of their story in an icon. This helps to keep the memories and legacy of the early ancestors of the Christian faith alive by pointing out their contributions to the history of Christendom.

    Now I shall address some common criticisms against the usage of icons that I hear often and respond to them using the proper means of scripture, tradition and reason. My main issue is not about if one needs to have an icon in their house or venerate them, but my issue is with those who utilize the Iconoclasm heresy in wishing to destroy the icons or have them be forbidden from the usage of Christians in both the church and at home. Each of the criticisms will be in italics.

    The icons are idols. They are only idols if you treat them as such by praying to the icon or expecting the icon itself to do something. However, we do not do this. Furthermore, if simply having them around is an idol, then we would have to accuse Moses of idolatry that God commanded of him in Numbers 21 regarding the serpent. Furthermore, the main issue with this objection is that it simply has the view that an object alone is an idol instead of the treatment on what idolatry means proper. It is moreso about how we view the object of our veneration and if it equals worship.

    Icons are unnecessary. This is such a bad objection for obvious reasons. Which is necessary to pray? By going to your closet in secret (Matthew 6:6) or is it good to pray out in the open for saying grace for meals at restaurants? Furthermore, do we pray by prostrating as Jesus did (Matthew 26:39) or is it by looking up to heaven as Jesus did (John 17:1)? Which of these are necessary? If either is able to be okay, then the same should be granted to the usage of icons as long as they are being used for the glory of God.

    Only the Lord deserves attention in devotion, not men. The issue here comes in allowing us to ignore understanding any good men of Christendom. After all, if we were to be consistent, we would have to stop relying on bible commentaries as well as to stop reading about important Christians in history like Augustine of Hippo, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Thomas Cranmer, etc. as we would not want to risk giving any devotion or respect towards important people in the faith. It is also important to learn from these figures since we also learn about prophets and apostles apart from God in the scriptures as well as those who weren't prophets and apostles.

    Icon veneration is silly and the icons cannot help you. Icons themselves do not have any properties to reach out and help us, but they can help us in the same way that a person's own words in a sermon can help us or perhaps even the way a Christian movie can help us. The movies do not have any divine properties, but they do contain teachings of God's word and even lessons which we can gather. Plus, when praying, they can guide us in what we can focus on. An example is the icon known as The Resurrection of Christ by Georgi Chimev, where Christ is depicted with divine glory on the gates of hades, where he is seen pulling at the Old Testament saints to bring with them in heaven where there are two angels seen holding a cross as a sign of victory over death. That sounds like a great way to teach the message of Easter to children.

    To conclude, I will point to the icons as being things which are beneficial and they can be very much a helpful tool for Christians in the utilization of the spreading of the Gospel, the adding of beauty (not object of) in our worship services and even powerful tools to aid us in our prayers by keeping our minds focused on what is God like and the heavens. May we avoid forbidding the use of icons and images, lest we be guilty of the heresy of Iconoclasm and indirectly adopt a faulty Christology. Let us instead use them or at least appreciate the beauty and sanctifying benefits they can bring about for the Christian. Amen.