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.