Watch this video by Pastor Tim Warner. I was made aware of Warner because a younger ChristianΒ I meet with has been listening to him lately; so I did a Youtube search for him, and came across this teaching that he is doing. Most of the video he discusses Calvinism and why he thinks it is basically of Pagan origins. And then interestingly he gets into a discussion on “General Revelation” and “History;” what I found curious, and disconcerting is the answer he gives to his question: (my paraphrase) “how can we best know God?” One student responds to him and says through “natural revelation” (and he says, basically that is right); but Warner’s primary mode for knowing who God is is by studying “history” (Biblical/OT). I was hoping that he was going to say by looking at Jesus, but he didn’t π . Anyway, watch the video and let me know what you think. Let me know if you agree with what he says about Calvinism. [Also just notice, he assumes that the only ways, theologically, for thinking about sovereignty and human responsibility is somewhere in between the “only” real poles of classical Calvinism and Arminianism]
Athanasian Reformed
πππππ’π π·ππ πππππ‘ ππ πππ‘ππππ’π. ππ‘π ππ¨π«π π¨π ππ¨π π°π’π₯π₯ π₯ππ¬π ππ¨π«ππ―ππ«.
I’m sorry I can’t bring myself to watch the vid. This sort of thing really messes with me.
But, if it’s okay to ask a couple questions from a position of ignorance…
Why would he say that Calvinism is of pagan origin (I know this accusation is often laid on Catholic theology by Protestants) and Is “natural revelation” similar to “natural law” that I’ve seen referenced by some Catholics?
Just wondering.
Thanks
Oh, and did you notice that there is a link on the “possibly related posts” option that says “Warner mutes and deletes Youtube videos”?
Not that it’s significant to your post here…just one of those things that makes it that much harder to NOT watch your clip when I’m pretty sure I’d better not π
@Heather,
I honestly don’t think this video would mess with you; it’s pretty innocent as far as doctrine (or shallow), and just barely touches on anything substantial (except in principle). The “pagan” point he makes, is that he tries to draw some sort of connection between astrological fatalism and Augustine’s ideas on predestination. He says that Augustine basically baptizes pagan thinking on fate with Christian teaching about God’s interaction with creation (through “cause”). It’s not to be taken seriously (except that unfortunately some people will take what Warner is saying seriously π ).
Basically the idea of “natural revelation” is what we find in Romans 1 (i.e. God reveals himself through creation [some of His attributes and such as the saying goes]). Natural Law is related to this kind of thinking (but then again, unabated so was Hitler’s “theology” π ). I don’t follow this tradition. I think we need to interpret all of reality by starting in Christ etc.
And no I didn’t notice that Warner has that option on muting and deleting his vids. Maybe he’ll do that with my usage of it π .
I don’t think what he says, though, would really “mess” with you.
Ok. Thanks for the explanations. I watched it clip after all.
Erm.
I’m not really comfortable with trying to use, say, the TULIP framework to explain God’s sovereignty concerning man’s salvation. BUt I’m not sure how Classical Calvinism would necessarily lead to somone having to admit that they believe God is the source of both good and evil.
I did note that he said one way to avoid falling into the error of extremes is to properly interpret the scriptures… That’s a statement to which I can agree. But you’re right. Unless there is something about Christ that was omitted from the clip, his “solution” concerning the Bible as a history text kind of falls short of pointing people to Jesus as the answer.
I think his point on “evil,” is that if we follow the logic of the absolute decress; then God can be said (Calvinists do say this) to be the Primary cause of evil/sin, although not it’s secondary cause — which is how they think (logically) they can get out of attributing evil to God.
I simply think that we don’t need to operate through these kinds of “causal” schemas, which is what my previous post to this one was about π .
See, I told you, nothing that was going to “mess” with you in this clip π .
I get the impression that Warner would simply think of himself as a Biblicist (of course so do I π ).
See, I told you, nothing that was going to βmessβ with you in this clip
LOL
Ok. So, if CC’s must logically (and honestly) follow their established theological structure to it’s conclusion, then God must somehow be directly responsible for evil. This would run counter to what the Bible tells us.
EC maintains that man is entirely depraved, and God is entirely sovereign yet not directly manipulating people to be evil. And *we* need to just accept the reality without trying to explain something that does not appear to have a readily available scriptural explanation?
Yeah, Scripture never explains “sin,” it just tells us how it is dealt with; through Christ.
In other words, God’s sovereignty is demonstrated in “weakness,” which reverses the apparent strength of sin.
But in short, yes, EC does not try to answer questions based upon constructs that seek to explain God (and his movement) based upon what “we” think should constitute the kind of power that it must take for a god to create or something.
In other words, Godβs sovereignty is demonstrated in βweakness,β which reverses the apparent strength of sin.
Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger. Psalm 8:2 (ESV)
π
Thanks, Bobby. I think your point here finally came through.
Just wanted to be sure I got it before walking away, patting myself on the back for having things all figured out π
Cool, Heather; I’m glad it came through π !
Interesting video…The main problem is not beginning with and staying centered in the Lord Jesus Christ as you had already pointed out…We can only know and understand God as He is revealed in Jesus Christ. It is sad that he emphasizes knowing the OT as the most important key to knowing God. God is love and we only know what love is through the Son of God fully assuming our humanity and laying down His life for us. We must look to Jesus alone! I believe he does misuse info to connect paganism and Augustine’s view of predestination to make a point…But I do agree that if you take TULIP to its logical conclusion you have major problems because of the causo-logico framework…It is impossible to know God by defining Him… π
Mr. Warner is a horrible. Almost everything he said in the video can be disputed (a good teacher would explain blind spots and contrary positions, honestly). I feel bad for those who are listening to him. I cringed when he said that the bible was a History book. Also when he talked about the concept of the Will, he clearly showed no grasped of the debate within the philosophic and theological literature. I think I would rather listen to my toilet flush. I know there isn’t much/any charity in these statements, but seriously this dude needs to pull it together and maybe do some more studying before he opens his mouth. Ad hominen, because he deserves it!
@Chris,
Yeah, his teaching is unfortunate. And I think his emphasis on the “history” of the OT w/o connecting that to the “history” (or pre) of Christ is what truly is problematic in his passing comments there. And then, yes, “evil” does seem to be connected to God through reductio ad absurdum (taking to its logical conclusion) in some sense with some forms of Calvinist teaching. But of course, they can argue “categorically” using their inter-locking metaphysical chain of primary, medial, and secondary causes that there is no necessary (only post hoc) relation between God and sin/evil. Which Warner truly needs to accurately describe before he seeks to dismantle it through caricature.
@Kenny,
I feel bad for those students too π . I think he certainly needs to do more studying, esp. since apparently this younger Christian guy (who is on “fire” you know the type Kenny . . . you went to Calvary Chapel too π ) is listening to him. Now that I’ve heard Warner myself, hopefully I’ll be able to convince my brother to find someone else more edifying π .
Someone notified me about this page, and asked me to respond to it, since you all are discussing me. I would like to remind all of you of the proverb which says: “Before destruction the heart of a man is haughty, And before honor is humility. He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.” (Prov 18:12-13 NKJV).
To Heather: The reason I said that Calvinism’s underlying premise is of pagan origin, is because it is true. “Fatalism” is the underlying premise of Calvinism, the idea that one does not have control of his destiny, but it is controlled by outside forces, so that his choices will in the end make no difference. The pagans believed the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, planets, constellations) were living beings (gods), which had powerful influence over people. Ones “birth sign” placed him within the sphere of certain of these gods, who then by their movements in the heavens controlled that person’s fate. The early Christians, prior to the 4th century, rejected astrology, and strongly denounced the underlying concept of fatalism. They universally supported the idea that all people have a free will, and that God permits them to choose, as He seeks to enlighten their minds through both natural creation and divine revelation. ALL of the early Christians, from the time of the Apostles until the council of Nicea, strongly rejected “fatalism” in any form. They believed that God, in His sovereignty, had decided to permit man a free will. And that man alone was responsible for his decisions and the consequences.
Instead of God’s coercing people to do His will, or condemning to eternal torment people from whom He withheld salvation, they taught that God (through His interaction in human affairs), has been INSTRUCTING humanity, educating them about what is good and what is evil, so that they would grow to respect Him, then love Him, and choose wisely for their own benefit. And that only when their rebellion reached a certain threshold, did He give up on them, and separate them for destruction. God was seen by the early Church as a benevolent “father” of humanity, seeking to train and discipline His creatures out of love and concern for their ultimate eternal well being, just as a human father does with his children.
Calvinism is the child of Augustine, who came from a pagan (Gnostic) background. Rather than “contending for the Faith once for all delivered to the saints” by the Apostles (as did all the earliest writers), he cared little for preserving what had been handed down within the Apostolic churches since the time of the Apostles. Instead, like the pagan Greeks and Gnostics which dominated that culture, he was more interested in philosophizing (comprehending God through the human intellect). So he blended the pagan fatalism with Christianity, merely naming the God of the Bible as the single source of the cosmic influence being exerted on mankind. He thus conjured up this monster of a God who has created the bulk of mankind for destruction, with no way to escape, even going so far as to teach that all unbaptized infants who die will burn in hell forever.
Regarding your comment, βWarner mutes and deletes Youtube videos,β that has nothing to do with me. It was a reference to Warner Music, which has a reputation on You Tube for forcing the removal of some clips that are infringing on their copyrights. I have no control over those videos on You Tube. They were put there by the student society at USF to whom I was invited to speak.
To Bobby: I think you need a little context for that video. I was asked to speak to a group of students at USF regarding apologetics, and how best to answer the militant atheist literature coming from people like Dawkins and Hitchens, which is widely read on university campuses. One of the hot buttons these atheists continue to press, having great success with our young people, is the unjustness of the Christian God. These atheists have created a caricature of Christianity which is based on Calvinism (as though Calvinism was Christianity – it is not). They use the Calvinist “God” as their whipping boy, showing that he is an unjust tyrant. He is ultimately the cause of evil in the world by his alleged sovereignty, and he is a monster who tortures the majority of mankind in hell for eternity without offering them any chance of salvation; he arbitrarily selects a few “elite” people (who are just as vile as those he tortures), and blesses them. And, his primary goal is to receive “glory,” making him an ego-maniac. In other words, using Calvinism as their springboard, they reproach God by showing that he is everything that mankind intuitively knows is morally wrong!
My point in that video series was that Calvinism’s false portrayal of God, and their willingness to accept mutually exclusive concepts (irrationality), is the root cause of atheism’s success in turning our children away from the Christian Faith. If Christian students are going to fight back, then they need to recognize the source of the problem — Calvinism’s false portrayal of God.
I do not say these things lightly. But Calvinism is a perversion of the Scriptures. It comes from looking at the Jewish Scriptures through a Greek philosophical lens, imposing Greek (pagan) presuppositions upon the text which was written by Jews, who had a totally different set of presuppositions. Given the correct presuppositions, the very same Scriptures Calvinists use to portray their God, actually portray a very different God, the one known to the earliest Christian writers prior to Augustine.
To Chris: I think you missed my point. I was pointing people to the historical record of Scripture, which also includes the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles. The main thrust of this series of lessons was to point people to FULFILLED PROPHECY as the key proof of God’s existence (because it is supernatural), and learning about WHO this God of Abraham really is. We learn it from the historical writings (both God’s record of dealing with Israel, and prophecies which can be shown to have been written down prior to the events occurring), AND a long history of miraculous intervention in Israel’s course (which obviously includes the coming of Jesus Christ to earth, which is the fulfillment of many such prophecies). Therefore, I was in no sense diminishing Christ’s work. But, since the focus was on PROVING to the skeptical student that the God of the Bible is real, and consequently, Jesus is who He claimed to be, it is first necessary to deal with the historical record. You cannot just approach an atheist or agnostic by making bold claims about Jesus, unless he is first willing to concede that there is a historical basis for believing that the Bible is true. If you listen to the whole series, I think you will get a better idea of where I was coming from.
To Kenny: I think you would be advised to stop playing with the toilet handle, and listen a little better to what is being said, and then think about the implications using the gray matter that God so graciously gave you.
To all: The Bible portrays God as being sovereign. We agree on that point. But, if He is sovereign, then it is His prerogative to permit free will under whatever circumstances He chooses. Therefore, allowing man to choose his destiny is NOT a transgression of God’s sovereignty, any more than if I allow my son to choose where we will go on vacation is a violation of my sovereignty as a father.
Furthermore, the Bible is quite plain that God is a HOLY God, that “in Him is no darkness at all.” He does not tempt any man with evil, nor can He be tempted with evil. God cannot lie. Yet, if Calvinism is true, we are faced with a God who lied to Cain, telling him that he COULD be accepted by God if he made the right choice, but ultimately he did not make the right choice. God also taunted him by giving him a false choice. Likewise, Jesus gives a false choice in the closing verses of the Bible, when He says: “And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev 22:17 NKJV).
If you take Calvinism to its logical conclusion (which few Calvinists are willing to do), then God is an ego-maniac, a monster, and schizophrenic (claiming that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance), yet his actions are not consistent with His will. This is not a God worthy of worship.
Tim Warner, Pastor
Oasis Christian Church
Tampa, Florida
http://www.oasischristianchurch.org
http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/index.html
Hello Pastor Warner,
Thank you for stopping by and providing more context and clarification.
1) I disagree with your caricature of Augustine (and reductionism).
2) You should read (if you haven’t) J.K.S. Reid’s translation of Calvin’s Concerning The Eternal Predestination of God. Calvin deals explicitly with Stoicism’s fatalism relative to the framing of a Christian view of predestination (relative to Calvin’s approach, of course). Calvin debunks the oversimplification that you’re communicating on such things. Having said that, here at “The Evangelical Calvinist,” we do not forward even Calvin’s view of election or predestination (although we do have a “Christ conditioned” supralapsarianism — you can read about it by going to my page “The Themes of “EC””).
3) I do agree with you, though, that CLASSIC Calvinism’s approach — and it’s Aristotelian causality and determinism — is highly problematic; and I often critique it (just go to my category “Critiquing Classic Calvinism”).
Having said all of this, my apprehension still remains; even after your clarification here. I do agree that atheists and the supposed Christian god they fight against, in fact, is not the Christian Triune God of historic Christianity and the Bible; I guess, though, my gripe is that you might not escape — theologically — your own critique. I’m not sure how you would articulate the inner-relations of God, and how that relates to creation. I’m not sure of your prolegomena and methodology in re. to your whole pedagogical project. But if what you said about the Bible being a “history” book is any kind of barometer, in that direction; then again, my issue with what you’re saying still stands! I don’t believe the Bible is a “history” book, indeed it covers the history of redemption; but its “purpose” is to point to Jesus (and He is where the “history” must start and end — thinking “Christianly”).
I’m sorry if I came off presumptuous — all I did was note a problem I had with your approach — but even after your provision of context and clarification; I still have the same issue with what you’re saying.
I respect you, and even love you as a brother in Christ; I don’t mean to come off as an up-start towards you. All I am trying to do is alert my younger brother in Christ to a problem I’ve noticed in your approach (in particular) — limited as my exposure to you is. That is not to say that I don’t think you love the Lord, or that you don’t have some good things to communicate about the Gospel of Jesus Christ (you obviously do). I would just ask you, as a brother in Christ, to think through some of the things you’re saying about the history of ideas (and Calvinism); and realize that there is more “thickness” available in that area. So, I think it would be helpful for you to communicate that to your students as you survey the history. It doesn’t serve your students well, or those listening to you via pod-cast etc., to provide oversimplified pictures of things like Calvinism, or whatever, to those younger in the faith. You’ve only demonized Calvinism in a way that is not fruitful (and in fact I agree with your basic premise on classic Calvinism — but I don’t think you’ve provided a fair robust picture of Calvinism [you’ve created a straw man and even poisoned the well a bit . . . and so your students will have a wrong view of Calvinism, which won’t help them down the road]).
God Bless,
Bobby
Pastor Warner,
I appreciate the reminder concerning Proverbs and apologize for the tone of my comments.
My comment regarding Warner deleting videos was not an informed one and I apologize for making the remark I did. It was meant to be primarily a jab at the way I tend to get overwhelmed with all the available theological information and I should not have said it.
He thus conjured up this monster of a God who has created the bulk of mankind for destruction, with no way to escape, even going so far as to teach that all unbaptized infants who die will burn in hell forever.
I’ve also noted and rejected this particular view of God but was unaware of the influences on Aristotle’s perspective. Thank you for expanding your statement.
I meant “Augustine’s perspective”.
Well, how intresting… Where is the Holy Gost in all of this? I have the Truth and the truth is Christ. What dis Stephen tell the holy (so they say) that they were before he was stoned to death? If Christ is so important to you, why do you speend you days trying to impress each other? false prophets are liars…. Christ does not dwell in the hearts of false prophets….. Ask God. Seek God. If you dont hear God’s spirt… than maybe,,, just maybe…. you are following the one who thinks he is god…. Brooks
Brooks,
Who are you addressing with your comment, and what are you addressing?