Will Jesus Save All Infants?

In the online world of theological debate, everyone is talking about “infant damnation.” This is in response to the “#baalgate” controversy, in which Warren McGrew (aka “Idol Killer”) compared the mentality of those who hold this doctrine to that of ancient pagan worshipers of Baal who offered their babies as sacrifices in exchange for their own rewards. His comments were taken by many Calvinists as a slam against Calvinism in general, though he has clarified that he was speaking only of those who also affirm infant damnation. Regardless of whether or not his comparison is valid, the spotlight is shining on this important, yet highly unpleasant topic. While most contemporary Calvinists outright reject infant damnation, some, including one of McGrew’s most vocal critics, James White, affirm it to one degree or another. Why would anyone support such a troubling doctrine? Why is this even a question? 

Historical Background 

The doctrine of infant damnation is inseparably tied to the doctrine of original sin, which can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Prior to Augustine, all orthodox Christians agreed that each and every human being suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin, which are a natural bent towards sin and, ultimately, death. This view is commonly referred to as “ancestral sin.” What makes original sin distinct is the added imputation of guilt for all humanity thereafter. All of Adam and Eve’s children, and all children thereafter, were then conceived with his willful sin attributed to their account, and thus they are justly deserving of eternal punishment. This view is echoed by 18th century preacher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards: 

“It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments.” 

For Augustine, water baptism was necessary to wash away original sin for each and every person, infants included. Without baptism, the soul would certainly be punished in hell for all eternity. This became the predominant view within the Roman Catholic Church, at least until limbo emerged as a more gracious alternative. “Limbo of the infants” can be defined as an eternal state for those who did not personally commit sin, but also did not receive baptism for the removal of original sin. Opinions have varied through the ages, with some proposing it as a mild form of punishment. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, suggested that it is experienced by inhabitants as a place of everlasting joy, while they remain ignorant of the greater joy of heaven. In any case, limbo is a permanent state. Such a “middle place” was previously condemned by Augustine:

“…let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness…”

In the past few centuries, many Catholic theologians have expressed hope that even unbaptized infants could be saved. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, under Pope John Paul II, release the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” It reads: 

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.”

While landing short of affirming the salvation of all infants, this represents considerable movement in that direction since Augustine. It is worth noting that no view regarding the eternal destiny of infants has ever been made official Catholic doctrine, which has allowed for this shift. However, the affirmation of the necessity of baptism into the Catholic Church has been consistent.

On the Protestant side, it has always been a question of Heaven or hell with no third option. While reformers such as Calvin and Luther echoed Augustine in regard to God’s justice in damning all humans souls to hell, they also maintained that God has the right to choose to save whoever He pleases. As such, the vast majority of Protestants have maintained that at least some infants who die are saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: 

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” (10.3)

Many Calvinistic Protestants insist this doesn’t imply that there are reprobate infants who are cast into hell, but the wording leaves room for most adherents of infant damnation to affirm the statement.

Calvinists divide into at least four camps. Most believe God elect all infants to salvation by appealing to the goodness of God’s grace. Loraine Boettner says: 

“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen.”

Some Calvinists believe that God elects some infants and not others irrespective of their parents, just as he elects and reprobates all people for no reason in and of themselves. Others believe that the children of believers are counted as elect, while those of unbelievers are not. A very small minority believe all infants are punished eternally in hell. (Yes, they do exist) What unites all Calvinists is that salvation is not granted on the basis of faith. 

Arminians and other non-Calvinistic Protestants have the challenge of showing how God can grant salvation to those who haven’t yet placed their faith in Christ. To justify universal infant salvation, most simply appeal to the goodness of God. The only way around this would be to allow for the possibility of postmortem salvation. If infants could be given a chance to mature and place their faith in Christ, then no exceptions would need to be made. A small minority of Protestants have presented postmortem opportunity for salvation as a way in which many could be saved. Among them are C.S. Lewis, and more recently, Jerry Walls. 

Weighing Our Options 

For all our differences, it is interesting how most Christians across denominations seem to be converging on this issue from a variety of angles. That being said, there remains no consensus. From what I’ve observed, there are seven ways Christians have answered the question, “What happens to babies when they die?” What are the pros and cons for each position? Allow me to present and critique each.

Universal Damnation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy, suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This view is consistent in that it upholds that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ alone. Since infants have not come to understand the Gospel and respond in faith, they have not obtained salvation. This also upholds the universal need for a Savior.

Cons: It is simply unfathomable that the same God revealed in Jesus Christ would condemn billions of children throughout history to eternal punishment without any ability to commit personal sin, or to trust Him to forgive them of such sins they have yet to commit. This view presents God as having the opposite posture towards children as that of Jesus in Scriptures such as Mark 10:14 and Matthew 18:2-6. Also, the Holy Spirit-led conscience of believers cries out against this. It would seem that for this to be true, the Trinity would be hopelessly divided.

Covenantal Election of Infants

Summary: Children of the elect are saved. The rest suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: Comfort can be given to Christian parents who grieve the loss of a child. King David can be cited as an example of one who would be reunited with his child in eternity. One might also point to the conversion of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-40, most notably verse 31: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Cons: In addition to those of #1, this view lacks consistency in a number of ways. First, it creates a class of “elect” who die without professing faith in Christ. Salvation cannot be through “faith alone” unless this is coupled with the belief in postmortem salvation. Once postmortem salvation becomes a possibility, why then should that be limited to those children with elect parents? Second, how do we suppose that salvation is transferred from parents to children? Can it be father or mother, or must both parents be saved? What if they aren’t believers when the child is conceived, but one or both become believers later in life, after the infant dies? Also, if salvation is transferred, how would it be lost if the child survives to an age that he or she rejects Christ? This distinctly Calvinistic version of infant damnation would have to either reject the Perseverance of the Saints or conclude that salvation was never transferred from the parents. The most glaring issue for the Calvinist is that election based upon the faith of the parents is conditional election.

Unconditional Election of Infants

Summary: Elect children are saved irrespective of their parents. All other children suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This seems to me to be the most consistently Calvinistic position. There is truly nothing in the child upon which God bases his decision to save. Election is unconditional. The remaining children are left to the eternal consequences of their sinful state.

Cons: Like #2, salvation cannot be said to be through “faith alone” unless there is postmortem opportunity for salvation. Also, this is not comforting for grieving Christian parents. If most adults are not saved believers, certainly most infants would also not be saved, since God saves infants in the same manner as adults. Moral objections to #1 also apply here.

Damnation of Unbaptized Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All others who die without baptism suffer eternal punishment.

Pros: This is a very clear method for knowing if your child is saved. If your child has been baptized, you are assured they are saved if they should die in infancy.

Cons: This does nothing to comfort those who have suffered miscarriages or whose child died before he or she could be baptized. While eternal punishment may be of a lighter form than for adults who added their own personal sin, the implications are still awful for the majority of infants who have died throughout history. From a Protestant perspective, it is easy to see how this can create a system rife for abuse. Since salvation can only be obtained through baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, believers can also have their salvation revoked by the same authority. 

Limbo of the Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All other infants who die remain in limbo for all eternity.

Pros: Children don’t suffer eternal punishment. This middle ground seems more just in that God is neither rewarding with Heaven nor punishing with hell those who have not done anything to deserve either.

Cons: While this offers some consolation, parents are still left grieving the loss of their unbaptized children for all eternity. They have no hope of being reunited. The default position of humans then is to remain lost, and that is a troubling conclusion when considering the salvific work of Jesus. Is He the Savior of all humanity from conception or just a portion? While God may show them mercy, it seems there is no salvific grace for those who die too young, through no fault of their own.

Universal Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are saved.

Pros: This is truly good news for all parents who grieve the loss of infants, and for the children themselves. The heart of Jesus for children we see in the Gospels is consistent with the gracious gift of salvation for those who have suffered the consequences of sin without personally committing sin.

Cons: As with the previous options, other than universal damnation, salvation is not through “faith alone” since infants are incapable of consciously placing faith in Christ. Thus, the standard for receiving the gift of eternal life is inconsistent across the human race. This may not be a dealbreaker in itself, but it is especially problematic for the Reformed. Central to Calvinism is Unconditional Election. If all who die as infants are saved, how is this not a condition for salvation? For God to say, “You died as an infant. Therefore, I will save you,” is a very clear example of God choosing to save an individual with respect to something about that individual. While most Calvinists today believe all infants who die are saved, they do so in a way that undermines Calvinism.

Postmortem Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are given the postmortem opportunity to express faith in Christ and be saved.

Pros: In addition to upholding the goodness of God and Trinitarian unity in the welcoming of children, this position also has the advantage of a consistent standard of salvation through faith in Christ alone. There would be no theoretical case of a child being welcomed into Heaven while refusing to worship Christ as Lord. 

Cons: There is no guarantee that all infants would willingly place their faith in Christ. Here is where our views on the created state of human souls will make a huge difference. If souls are created in a fallen, totally depraved state, then it would seem that they would universally reject Christ postmortem, just as they would in this life. However, if souls are created innocent, and not in a hardened state of rebellion against God, it would seem quite likely that most, if not all, would willingly receive the offer of salvation in Christ. So our views on original sin will determine whether we think this will result in some infants being damned. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this view is the lack of clear biblical support. Hebrews 9:27 is often cited as evidence against postmortem opportunities, though it must be interpreted in an absolute, immediate, and final sense to rule them out.

Where I Stand 

As children often repeat in Sunday school, “God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!” Do we as Christians sincerely believe this? Do we believe what Jesus said about children?

“Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:13-14)

Considering the goodness of God and his love for children, the only good options are #6 and #7. In years past, I would have ruled out the possibility of postmortem salvation, but I lean towards that view now, especially as I consider how it can resolve all of these difficulties. The words of Jesus, counter to Augustinian anthropology, suggest that children are predisposed to believe. He cites them as possessing the kind of faith we should all desire to have. It is only as we grow older that we can become cynical and jaded. Thus, hearts become hardened. They don’t begin that way. For this reason, I am convinced that all infants, given the opportunity by Christ Himself to place their faith in Him, will do so. 

This could even make sense of the Catholic conviction concerning baptism. If infants have the opportunity to grow enough to place their faith in Christ, it’s no stretch to imagine that they might also have the opportunity to be baptized in a temporary dwelling place prior to entering the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. 

I am not convinced that Hebrews 9:27 rules out postmortem opportunities, and I do think that Scripture teaches of the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. In these verses, it seems that Peter is teaching that Jesus preached the Gospel to lost souls in Hades while He was bodily in the grave prior to His resurrection. If I am interpreting 4:6 correctly, Jesus was giving these people the opportunity to receive Him as Savior or be judged for their sins in their rejection. There are alternate theories to explain these verses, but I believe this makes the most sense, and is consistent with the expressed desire of God to save each and every person (see 2 Peter 3:9). If God was willing to give wicked sinners another chance to believe and be saved, why wouldn’t He give innocent children that opportunity?

Logically, it would seem that some form of postmortem faith in Christ is necessary for any view where infants are saved. Faith can only be exercised by those who have developed the maturity to understand and believe, and it seems reasonable to assume that infants in the afterlife will not remain infants forever. So the question then is WHEN do they express faith in Christ: before or after they enter Heaven? Additionally, evidences from near death experiences suggest that individuals who have died as infants are present, and they mature in the afterlife. Of course, NDEs are controversial, and it’s debated whether they say anything about eternity. I believe they make a compelling case for postmortem opportunities, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some might object that if infants are not personally guilty of sin then they do not need a Savior. Infants have not sinned, but those who died suffered the consequences nonetheless. Is their suffering in vain? Will those who suffered the cruel injustice of abortion be vindicated, or will such evil remain eternally victorious? Everyone needs a Savior because everyone dies. Only Jesus has the power to raise us up out of our graves. 

I am convinced that the Good News of the Gospel is for all of the human race. Jesus has redeemed the totality of mankind. It is only those who willfully reject Him that will not receive His salvation. It is never a matter of Him first rejecting us. Whether it’s through an act of instantaneous transformation, or the grace to simply allow these souls to choose life with Jesus, I cannot know for certain, but I can be sure that our God loves these infants. He sympathizes with their suffering, and will call them to Himself with His arms stretched out to receive them.

And what a glorious reunion that will be for those of us who have lost a child so young! Many of us have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage, and never had the joy of meeting our child face-to-face. Yet something within our souls knows that this isn’t the end. We will meet them someday, and we will never again have to say goodbye.

Concluding Thoughts 

Looking back on the history of infant damnation within Christendom has left me with conflicted emotions. On one hand, I am saddened to see how pervasive this doctrine has been throughout the centuries. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged that the Holy Spirit is at work, pricking the conscience of believers to a place where we can all hope for the salvation of “the little ones.” We are, slowly but surely, being brought into conformity with Christ.

Making Sense of Christianity 8 - Grace Through Faith

What I have presented in this series can be summed up in one simple phrase: “God is good!” This is the foundational truth of orthodox Christian theology, though we must be careful to ground our understanding of goodness in what God has revealed to us through the created world, Scripture, and most of all through Jesus Christ Himself. He has demonstrated what it means to do the will of the Father, loving God and others self-sacrificially. He has shown us what is good, and it is our responsibility to abide by His will. That being said, none of us have been able to do so perfectly. Our failure to live up to His perfect standard has left us in a seemingly hopeless state. Yet God has graciously provided a way for us to be righteous. If we are “in Christ,” we become like Him, just as He became like us (2 Corinthians 5:21). He graces us with His goodness when we place our faith in Him. This is the Good News. This is the Gospel of salvation.

The Paradox of Salvation

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” These words from Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus sum up the basics of salvation. By expressing our faith in Christ, we are given the free gift of eternal life. We do not obtain it through our efforts to live perfect lives because none of us are capable of doing so. The paradox at the heart of Christianity is that God’s goodness is so great that none of us are worthy to be in its presence. Yet because He is so good, His compassion towards us compels Him to graciously offer a way that is obtainable for us to become worthy. This way is by simply laying aside our own delusions of self-righteousness to place our trust in Jesus Christ as the one who is good, and who is able to save us from sin and death.

Pride vs. Humility

Saving faith is not mere intellectual belief in the facts of who Jesus is and that He rose from the dead (James 2:19). True faith requires humility. The opposite of humility is pride, which is the fundamental sin of self-righteousness that lies at the heart of rebellion. Satan and his demons were prideful, and those who have joined the rebellion, refusing to bow their knees to God, are likewise defined by their self-righteousness.

In Luke 18:10-14, Jesus gives us a parable to illustrate the importance of humility before God: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

James 4:6-10 confirms this: “But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.” 

God’s grace is received through humility, which is an essential aspect of faith. When we recognize that we have sinned and need the mercy of God, He lifts us up with His grace. 

Faith that Pleases God

Hebrews 11:6 says, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” A purely intellectual “faith” is no faith at all. We must seek after God, which requires the humility to admit that He is Lord of all, including our lives. Seeking Him necessarily involves the desire to please Him, which brings us to another paradox: Those of us who are Christians want to please God. We continually fail to do so in our thoughts and actions. Yet we do please Him through faith in Christ. God is gracious and compassionate toward us. Remember, because He became one of us, He can sympathize with us in our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). His perfect love compels Him to provide a way for us to be with Him. 

This is the depths of His goodness, that He would self-sacrificially love those who are suffering in sin, but wanting to be healed. He does not leave us without hope. He became our salvation by taking on our flesh, bearing the curse on the cross, and conquering death in His resurrection. Through faith in Him, we identify with His victory. We want that for ourselves, and He has promised to do it. John 6:40 says, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Seeking Him

Some Christians have argued on the basis of Romans 3:10-18 that “there is none who seeks after God,” implying that those who believe in Him only do so through a supernatural act of God overcoming the will of the sinner. In this view, those who reject salvation are not genuinely offered it to begin with. God has never intended to save them. While this is a stumbling block for many, I have found that other passages show that God has not left helpless any individual created in His image. 

Acts 17:26-27 says, “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” I like to refer to this as the “meaning of life” passage, as Paul is explaining to the people of Athens why God has created us, and what He is calling us to do in response. What we learn here is that God hopes for each and every individual He has ever created to seek Him and find Him. The fact that “He is not far from each one of us” tells us that He can be sought and found by any and every human being. God has placed us where we are in time and space for this very reason. He wants us to be reconciled to Him, and through the atonement of Christ, has provided that gift for all who will receive it. 

What Scripture teaches is not that we can’t seek Him, but that He has sought us first. God has extended His hand of grace, but we must reach out and take hold of it. Titus 2:11-14 says: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.” This is God’s teleological purpose for the human race, and His Church will ultimately fulfill it.

A Better End

In an earlier post, I introduced the idea that a world that includes the incarnation and atonement is better than a world that didn’t have those goods (“Felix Culpa”). The end will be far greater than the beginning. While we have experienced a great deal of physical and emotional suffering as the consequence of sin, God has taught us what it means to forgive. He has taught us what it means to show compassion to the hurting. He has demonstrated the greatest kind of love through His sacrificial death on the cross. He has taught us what it means to be restored. He has shown us grace. In so doing, we can likewise learn to forgive those who have wronged us. We can show compassion to those who suffer. We can lay aside our own interests to love others. We can lead others to reconciliation with God. We can show grace to those who, like us, do not deserve it. 

Because of what Christ has done for us, we, as His ambassadors, can demonstrate the love of Christ to a world that needs Him. As 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 says: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.”

Grace and Love

The Good News is that the Creator of the universe loves each and every one of us, and through the atonement and resurrection of Jesus, He has provided a way for us to be restored to relationship with Him. As we receive Him, we become like Him. God is love, and those in Him will learn to truly love as He loves, as we become one with Christ as He is one with the Father (John 17:20-23). This love will pour out of us as we receive the grace of God through faith in Him. 

I would like to close with this passage from Luke 7:36-50, as it really captures the heart of the Christian message:

“Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, ‘This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.’

And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’

So he said, ‘Teacher, say it.’

‘There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?’

Simon answered and said, ‘I suppose the one whom he forgave more.’

And He said to him, ‘You have rightly judged.’ Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.’ Then He said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’

And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’

Then He said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.’”

Review 

Thank you for reading!

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith

A Feisty Fall Debate: McGrew vs Slick Reviewed

I must confess that recently I’ve grown weary of the never-ending arguments over Calvinism. The behavior of many on social media from any and every side of each point of the TULIP can be discouraging and tiresome. While there is much division in the Church at large over a wide variety of doctrines and practices, it seems to reach another level when it comes to soteriology. Passions run high, and it’s not hard to see why. These issues are of significant importance as they affect our view of God and His relationship to us. When it comes to secondary issues of the faith, I’m not sure there is anything more important. After catching Warren McGrew’s interview with Leighton Flowers a few weeks ago, my own interest was rekindled. As a former Calvinist, his personal testimony of the effects of reading the Bible from Genesis forward with fresh eyes and finding that the “doctrines of grace” were not to be found was very compelling, and helped to renew in me a desire to write on the subject. Having recently debated Matt Slick of CARM.org, one of the leading voices in Calvinism on the internet, they reviewed what was a very contentious, but also enlightening, discussion on the topic, “Is Total Depravity True?” Being inspired to go back and see it for myself, I thought I would share some points that stood out for me. There is much more that could be said, but for the sake of brevity, I will focus on one key thematic point from each side. Before I do, I will allow its defender (Slick) to define the subject of the debate.

Total Depravity:

 

“Man is completely touched by sin in all of what he is... so his heart, soul, mind, strength... has been affected by sin. That is not to say that he is as bad as he can be... we can always be worse in our sin. Total depravity is still retained upon regeneration, but we (Christians) are regenerate and we war against the flesh... The unregenerate will not of their own free, sinful state freely choose to receive Christ because their hearts are desperately wicked... and they are enslaved to sin. They cannot receive spiritual things. They are dead in their sins. They are by nature children of wrath. They are at enmity with God. They can do no good.” 

1. Slick: All humans are naturally irrational in spiritual matters.

Key Scripture:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”‭‭ (I Corinthians‬ ‭2:14‬)

While Slick concedes that humans are rational beings, he asserts that such rationality doesn’t apply to spiritual things. When it comes to spiritual matters, everyone will reject these truths unless God regenerates them and causes them to receive them. McGrew counters that the “natural man” in the above passage is someone who is not synonymous with “unbeliever,” but is “carnal,” specifically pursuing sin. In this sense, it is possible for an unbeliever to positively receive spiritual truths if they are not driven by selfish pursuits. It is also possible for a believer to reject them if they are hung up in sinful behaviors. He uses the example of children, perhaps up to young adulthood, as being in the former category. They may not yet believe the gospel, but they may still be receptive to it because they are not willfully submitting to sin. McGrew argues that we are created as rational beings in the image of God, there is no reason to believe that our rationality is impaired from birth in spiritual matters, and that Scripture doesn’t make this claim. While he argues that rationality can point us to God’s truth, Slick accuses him of elevating rationality to the level of Scripture. 

This is where Slick’s argument falls apart. If only Scripture can be relied upon for truth, then any interpretation of Scripture (which each of Calvinism’s doctrines of grace happen to be) is unreliable, and cannot also be taken for truth. To do so would be to put them on the same level, by Slick’s own standard. While he can argue that the regenerate believer can be made to understand and believe spiritual things, he must then either say that all regenerate believers will be made to understand spiritual things, like the doctrine of total depravity, or that some regenerate believers will be able to understand only some spiritual things. Therefore, either the only true believers are Calvinists who agree unanimously on all other spiritually discerned matters, or Calvinists are simply superior models of regeneration. The non-Calvinist is a partially regenerated, inferior Christian. Slick seems to suggest the latter, as he says that it is possible for Christians to not fully submit to receiving the things of the Spirit of God, pointing to McGrew as an example of such a Christian. While claiming to elevate the authority of Scripture, Slick only elevates his own. He is sure to remind us that he has a Masters of Divinity from a Calvinist university, and has been teaching Calvinism for 30 years. Surely he is a reliable source of truth on these matters!

Such appeals to extra-biblical authority are all too common among those who shout loudest about “Sola Scriptura.” The Calvinist routinely appeals to his confessions and councils. What conflicts with either is denounced as “heresy.” I counted at least a dozen uses of some form of the “H” word from Slick in this debate, and I honestly lost count on “Pelagian.” Does the Christian have the right to denounce heresies where they are found? Sure, if we allow for rationality to lead us to truths not stated plainly in Scripture. In this debate, only McGrew can do so without undercutting his own argument. 

2. McGrew: The incarnation is devalued by total depravity.

Key Scripture:

 “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”‭‭ (Hebrews‬ ‭2:14-18‬)

Of all the points made in this debate, this one is likely to stir up the most discussion. I don’t recall ever hearing this line of argument in a formal debate before, though it is something I have chewed on in my own mind. What does it mean that “in all things He had to be made like His brethren?” There seems to be a strong connection between the incarnation and the atonement, and it raises the question of how Christ can be a proper representative of the human race. McGrew argues that He had to be made like us, not only in His appearance, but also in His nature. If we are born with a sinful nature, as total depravity says we are, then for Christ to be like us in every way would mean that He would be born with a sinful nature. Yet Christ was without sin, therefore He wasn’t born with a sinful nature. Since He was like us, then we likewise were not born with a sinful nature. 

Slick’s counter to this is that Christ was not like us in His nature because He didn’t have a human father, and that McGrew is a Pelagian. There was much back-and-forth about the definition of a Pelagian, and whether McGrew met Slick’s previously stated definition, but none of that is particularly important. At this moment in time, Slick has effectively defined Pelagianism as the denial of original sin, which is understood as the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to each human from the moment of conception. So if you believe that babies in the womb are innocent until they personally choose to sin, then you are also a Pelagian, which makes you a heretic! I would be too. The actual definition is hard to agree upon, since we only know what Pelagius taught through Augustine and other second-hand sources. Did he teach that men were capable of living sinless lives? Did he believe man makes the first move to God to be saved? Or did he simply believe that human beings were not born guilty of sin? 

Now, while I believe McGrew is on the right track in his argument, I do believe where he goes with it opens him up to these accusations of Pelagianism. By arguing that Christ did not have a sinful nature, therefore we are not born with a sinful nature, he is making a claim about humanity that runs counter to the position of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (both rooted in Augustine’s teachings on the subject) throughout history up to the present. This might be consistent with Eastern Orthodoxy, which has never affirmed original sin. Since I was unsure of McGrew’s exact position, I went to his YouTube series on the topic. I found this quote of his in the comments under the video on “Hypostatic Union,” which brings clarity to his view of the sin nature:

“I don’t believe human nature is sinful. It merely possesses God given drives, appetites and ambitions which can be used to sin or in obedience. The term Original Sin is an Augustinian doctrine asserting our flesh, will, mind and soul are stained by sin, and possessed of concupiscence, therein deserving hell upon coming into existence. The term sinful nature can be used to refer to the effects of Original Sin, or a nature developed through personal sinning.” 

If I understand McGrew correctly, he believes a sin nature is something we develop through our own individual practice of sin once we are mature enough to consciously know what we are doing. In this way, he affirms that all adult humans throughout history (the mentally disabled possibly excepted) have had a sin nature. While Jesus was born like us without a sin nature, He never developed one because He never sinned. All humans suffer pain and die, including children, because of the curse. Jesus also suffered and died because of the curse. 

What I don’t see in his position is anything that makes us more prone to sin than Adam and Eve were before the Fall. Yet we all sin eventually, right? Were Adam and Eve replaceable with any of us? Would we all choose to sin without a prior inclination to do so? Maybe, but I am not sure that our own lived experience, or the full revelation of Scripture, fit this scenario. (I believe there is a better solution, and I will provide that in my next post: “Making Sense of the Fall.” Stay tuned!)

All of this is a stark contrast to Slick’s position of total depravity from conception, which led to his assessment of McGrew’s opening statement as a “heresy-fest.” But even assuming they are “Pelagian,” how does Slick justify calling them heretical? He must appeal to the extra-biblical declarations of men in centuries past in various councils. There is no biblical passage that outlines the “heresy” of Pelagianism. So appealing to the opinions of fallible men is to cut the legs out from his affirmation of Sola Scriptura. If I were McGrew, I would let Slick call him a Pelagian and demand that he justify the claims that Pelagianism (as he has defined it) is heresy without appealing to post-biblical church history. If those councils were not equally inspired as Scripture, then they cannot be held up as infallible. If we assume that they got everything right, then we are guilty of the heresy of raising their opinions to the level of Scripture, according to Slick’s logic.

Closing Thoughts:

One lesson I’ve learned in recent years through much debate in social media is that every Christian is a heretic in the eyes of another. Whether it be the Protestant vs Catholic divide, Calvinism vs Arminianism or Provisionism, or any other hot-button issue within the broader umbrella of Christianity, there are many who consider those on the other side to be heretics destined for hell if they don’t repent of their ideological sins. The divisions in the Church are an opportunity for us to display the grace and kindness of our Savior, but we often choose to drive a wedge between us so as to elevate ourselves above others. 

What viewers of this debate are most likely to come away with, more than a contrast of ideas, is a contrast of demeanors. Slick was uncharitable, impatient, and unwilling to show grace to a brother who disagrees. McGrew on the other hand, while at times clearly frustrated, was eager to embrace Slick as a brother, even thanking him for how his ministry has helped him in the past. His demonstration of grace was striking in the face of its absence. How we treat each other matters greatly, and its impact is felt outside the walls of the church. We never know who is looking in, and we also do not know who is on the inside looking out. My hope is that this debate will lead us to consider how we reflect Christ in our differences, that we might not be a clanging cymbal, but speak truth in love.

5 Keys For Steering Our Kids To Lasting Faith

As I discussed in my previous post, there are a variety of reasons why a person might leave Christianity, and we have been seeing many depart in recent years. While this can be a source of great sadness, there are some lessons to be learned. My hope in writing this is to show how we can do our own part to reverse this trend. I don’t pretend to suggest that we can always prevent people from leaving, but I do believe that our churches, and most importantly, Christian parents, can do better to prepare our own children for the challenges to their faith that they will encounter in an increasingly secular world.

In my line of work, we undergo periodic training in defensive driving through the Smith Driving System. This program, which features behind-the-wheel instruction, is summarized in the “5 Keys.” I came to the realization that these same principles can be easily adapted to the training up of our children in the knowledge of the truth of Christianity. So, I thought I would share how I am applying these keys in raising my own kids, and how I believe the Church at large can likewise learn to help guide our children going forward. 

Key #1: Aim High in Steering (Keep Your Eyes On Christ)

One of the biggest mistakes drivers make is when they lock their eyes on the car in front of them, not seeing what is going on further down the road. As Christians, we can make a similar error by focusing on all the superficial aspects of the day-to-day Christian life. We can be so ingrained in the culture of the Church, that we lose sight of the One for whom it exists. We need to help our kids understand that, while there are many aspects of our lives that are shaped by our faith, the object of our faith is Christ Himself. It is interesting to note in my last post the absence of Jesus as a reason why people leave Christianity. Nobody ever says, “I found the proof that Jesus was not really God and didn’t rise from the dead.” No. The reasons given make it evident that their eyes were not on Christ, but what was right in front of them. By contrast, ex-Muslim turned Christian apologist Nabeel Qureshi, while dying from stomach cancer at the age of 34, affirmed in his final days that while he didn’t understand why his prayers were not answered, or why his suffering was so great, that he could not deny the truth that Jesus is Lord, and that He is risen from the dead. He had his eyes aimed high, and his faith persevered in the midst of the greatest trials. 

Key #2: Get the Big Picture (Make Sense of the Christian Worldview)

I was an AWANA kid. Growing up in the 80s, we were taught to learn our Bible verses word-for-word, and we had all the flannel-board Bible stories in Sunday School to go along with it. Now, there’s nothing wrong with any of these things, but what is severely lacking in Christian education, especially for children and teenagers, is a philosophical grounding for our worldview. We learn “what” to think, but we don’t learn “how” to think as Christians. How many children in our churches can tell you about how David killed Goliath with five smooth stones and a slingshot, yet they cannot tell you what it means to be made “in the image of God?” Do our high schoolers understand why God as our Creator makes all the difference in how we ought to live our lives? Do they know what a soul is, and how its existence points us to God? These are challenging subjects, but they are far more important than the number of animals of each kind that entered the ark, or what kind of wood Noah used to build it. I’m not arguing that we should neglect the details. On the contrary, understanding the purpose of Christianity motivates further study into the details of Scripture. When we place our focus on the details, we can miss the big picture. At some point, we all must ask, “WHY should I be a Christian?” That is a reasonable question, and we should have an answer grounded in truth. Just as adjusting your mirrors in your car can give you the big picture of everything around you, having a wide-angle view of Christianity can give us clarity as we go out into the world. 

Key #3: Keep Your Eyes Moving (Prepare for Potential Threats to Faith)

While it is helpful to have the big picture of the world around us, we are still in danger if we aren’t continually checking each mirror and preparing for potential hazards. Having our Christian worldview in place, we also need to be aware of challenges to it, because they can come from any angle. Many Christians take the approach that we should do everything we can to protect our kids from exposure to people and ideas that run counter to our beliefs. It is sad to see how many of those who share their “ex-Christian testimonies” are ones who grew up in such an environment. A better approach is to help our kids understand what other worldviews are out there, and to show them how they fail to make sense of things. If we are the first to introduce them to postmodernism, and we have shown them how self-refuting it is, they will be prepared to dismiss it when they encounter it. If we teach them to spot naturalism, they will recognize it in their science textbooks. Likewise, we can introduce them to other religions, showing them how they fail as satisfying explanations of the world, and pointing out how they contradict Christianity. Now an important disclaimer: when presenting other views, it is absolutely essential that you do so accurately. Is your description something someone who holds that view would sign on to? It is no good, and even detrimental to your purpose, to present a straw man of other worldviews. Doing so can destroy your credibility, and can be a cause for doubts to arise in your children when they encounter the actual beliefs of others. So this will require some work to properly understand other views. I suspect that many Christians avoid doing this because they are themselves fearful that they will get sucked into them or discover that Christianity is false. As someone who has studied apologetics and philosophy for years now, I can assure you that exposure to other belief systems, while balanced with a big picture understanding of my own, has only strengthened my confidence in the truth of Christianity. I have no doubt that others will experience the same. 

Key #4: Leave Yourself An Out (Allow Differences in Interpretation)

How many of us have been on the freeway when suddenly a car to our side begins moving over into our lane, and we have to swerve to avoid impact? Such a thing happened to me a couple weeks ago, and due to my training to avoid being boxed in, I was able to quickly move over without hitting another car. Learning to “leave yourself an out” is a great practice for Christian faith as well. Knowing that Christianity essentially boils down to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, and that He is our risen Savior (Key #1), we do not need to box ourselves in by making secondary issues essential to our faith. My goal with my children is to help them to realize that there are various points of disagreement among Christians on a number of doctrinal issues, but that can be a strength, not a weakness. I hope to help them to understand various sides of all these issues so they have the freedom to pursue what they believe is right. We don’t want our children to reject Christianity for the wrong reasons. Are the secondary issues we feel convicted about worth drawing a line in the sand over? Should my children become convinced that I am wrong about my views on the end times, the age of the earth, or even (gasp) predestination, I want them to have the freedom to move into a different lane. As long as that lane is going in the same direction, they are progressing in their walk of faith and getting closer to their eternal home. Their faith will actually be stronger for it, because they have learned to make it their own. Part of this step is being willing to present the various perspectives that are out there to our children once they are old enough to understand. I often tell our 14-year-old daughter, “many Christians disagree on this, but I lean towards this interpretation.” This allows her to differentiate between primary and secondary issues, and also lets her know that it is okay to disagree with me and remain a faithful Christian. Her salvation isn’t dependent on signing off on a long list of doctrinal points. It is much simpler, and much more flexible. In that way, it is much less fragile. 

Key #5: Make Sure They See You (Live Authentically)

Humans are social creatures. We cannot function properly in isolation. When it comes to driving safely, making eye contact or hand signals with pedestrians or other drivers can help to communicate our intentions. As Christian parents, it is likewise important that our children see us living out our faith so that our words translate to our actions. When there is a disconnect, the message is confused and they do not see the practical value in Christianity. For my own part, I have been intentional with our daughter to make sure that she sees me forgive and extend grace to her and my wife when they have done something to upset me. Likewise, I have apologized and asked for forgiveness when I have done wrong to them. I don’t do these things perfectly, but I make sure to do them when I know that I need to because that is how I can best model Christ to my family. My hope is that she will remember these moments as she grows up and that they communicate something real and different from the secular world. Most of all, I hope to be an example to her and my newborn son of selfless, unconditional love. When I drifted away from the faith in my late 20s, my parents did not treat me as any less a part of the family. They demonstrated unconditional love for me as their son. For those parents whose children have left the home, and maybe even left the faith, it is not too late to begin doing this if you aren’t already. It is not enough for Christians to be set apart from the world by what we don’t do. We must also do what the world won’t do. Living out the selfless, sacrificial love of Jesus is the most impactful way of communicating the Gospel. We must begin doing this with those in our own home. 

Concluding Thoughts

I can imagine that for many parents, some of this may seem quite daunting. How am I supposed to teach my kids these things if I don’t know where to begin myself? Well, I won’t lie and say it will be easy. It takes time and a great deal of effort to learn theology, apologetics, and philosophy. However, our children need us to step up to this challenge. What we’ve been doing isn’t good enough in this culture, where the threats to the faith of our kids are so pervasive. If they don’t face them all at school, there are countless voices just a click away on the internet who are hard at work making their beliefs seem silly. We must do better. As it says in Proverbs 22:6: “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.” This is not an absolute guarantee, but a general principle regarding the responsibility we have to the spiritual health of our children. While we can’t say with certainty that even if we do everything right, that our kids will persevere in their faith, one thing we be sure of is that to neglect that training is to set them up for failure. We must adapt this proverb to our increasingly hostile world by training them to understand and defend Christianity. 

So where do we start? Well, I’d like to help with that in my next post, as I will be sharing my top 10 extra-biblical resources for building and defending the Christian worldview. These will help primarily with keys 2-4. In the meantime, the most important things to remember are to always direct their eyes to Christ as the center of our faith, and to model His love in our homes and to others. In these ways, we can help our kids safely navigate the dangerous roads they will travel in life.