Warren McGrew recently obtained a lot of attention by making a bizarre accusation against his theological opponents.
Warren states:
I just wanted to highlight how that's the same kind of spirit and mindset that the ancient worshippers of pagan deities would engage in when they would sacrifice their children to Baal. Because as long as I get my good crops I'm willing to throw my child on the pyre. You know, as long as I am being blessed financially I'm willing to throw my child on the pyre. It's the same mindset where they're like well God may have eternally reprobated my child but as long as I get into heaven I'm cool with that.
That clip is taken from his appearance on Leighton Flowers' show. On his own show, Warren doubled down on this ridiculous claim. He stated:
It's the same mindset -- the same Spirit -- behind adherence of infant damnation and those ancient worshippers of Molech and Ba'al who would burn their children alive in sacrifice. They say I'm out of line for drawing this comparison and to those who've raised this complaint I do want to apologize. I'm sincerely wrong that I did not use harsher terms to condemn it: like noting it's the spirit of antichrist and that it's contrary to the god of scripture.
Shortly after the clip above, Warren continued with more of the same:
Let's consider that comparison for a moment. You have a pagan and they love their baby and in profound grief they toss it into the fire because ultimately they want their God's approval and if the crops come, well then ultimately the parents are okay with the loss of their beloved child. Similarly, adherents of infant damnation love their baby and are in profound grief when they see God toss it into the Eternal fires of hell because ultimately they want their God's approval. And in the grand scheme of Eternity, ultimately the parents are okay with the loss of their beloved child. And there you have it: that's the same mindset - same Spirit - same energy. So the comparison sticks. So, no other differences between them will actually serve to invalidate the comparison.
The Rebuttal
It's not hard to rebut Warren's comparison, and there are several ways that it could be rebutted. One rebuttal that was offered by some Calvinists is that they don't hold to infant damnation. Warren's comments sounded to some people as though they were intended as a critique of Calvinism. Since infant damnation is not a core tenet of Calvinism (much less a distinctive of Calvinism), it seemed like an odd criticism, to put it mildly.
However, even if we give Warren the benefit of the doubt that he intended this as a criticism of the subset of those who do think God does damn to hell at least some humans who die in infancy, there are still gaping holes in his comparison.
First, it's one thing to offer up one's children as a sacrifice to false god, and it's quite another to accept the loss of one's children at the hand of God. Job, who had sacrificed for his children while they were alive, when he heard God had taken their lives (not knowing, of course, that Satan was God's instrument in this), responded: " the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21) This is not the same spirit as those who caused their own children to pass through the fire.
Second, as hard as it would be to stomach, if God were to command child sacrifice, it would be evidence of great faith in God to proceed toward doing it, as we saw with Abraham. The author of Hebrews tell us:
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Indeed, Moses tells us that God himself said:
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Third, the quid pro quo inherent in the analogy Warren offered is absent from the mindset of the folks that Warren criticizes. Those who sacrificed their children to false gods did so to obtain something from their gods. Those who humbly accept the loss of their children do not do so in order to obtain God's favor.
Even, in the case of our father Abraham, he did what he did because he trusted God, not because he was hoping to get something from God. There is nothing Abraham wanted more than a son. Not so for those who caused their children to pass through the fire: they wanted something more than they wanted their children, and consequently were willing to engage in an unholy attempt to obtain a benefit this way.
This stands in stark contrast to the resignation of believers to a hard Providence. We see David offered as both a negative example of sin causing the death of infants, but also of David's acceptance of God's decision:
2 Samuel 12:16-23
David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Some of us have taken this as an expression of David's hope to see his son in paradise, not merely in the grave. However, whether we adopt that view or not, David clearly did not want his child to die, and was grieved at the thought of it. Nevertheless, when God took the child's life, David acquiesced in what God had done. David did not curse God, but acknowledged that if the child lived it would be simply by God's grace.
In his follow-up video, Warren alleged that he did not hear rebuttal of his points, merely outrage. Well, of course there was outrage. The comparison is bumbling at best. Those who credit Warren with some measure of intelligence saw it not as a failure of his ability to understand the ill-fitting criticism of "Calvinism" nor to see the errors in his comparison even as offered more narrowly of advocates for the existence of the damnation of some humans who die in infancy. They saw it as simple slander. I'm sure those others who complained could also have offered the rebuttals above, but I offer this anyway, to close the loop.
No comments:
Post a Comment