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.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment