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:
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.