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.

Reformed Theology Roundtable: Does the Author Analogy Succeed?

Last week, while multitudes of theology nerds were still digesting the Molinism vs Calvinism debate between William Lane Craig and James White, our friends at the Complete Sinner’s Guide brought us a fascinating deep-dive on the intricacies of Reformed Theology. Co-hosts Tyler Fowler and Joshua Davidson were joined by frequent guest Joshua Sherman and, to represent the Reformed position, Chris Date, Andrew Elliott, and Jeremiah Short. The purpose of this panel discussion was to clearly articulate the relationship between the Reformed/Calvinistic concepts of God’s eternal decree and man’s free will, as described by the philosophy of compatibilism. While all three affirm God’s meticulous determination of all history, each reject hard determinism and the idea that God is the author of sin. This was a central sticking point in the discussion, especially as Date proposed that their position is best compared to the relationship between an author and his story. I would like to do my best here to represent this view, and to show how I believe this analogy fails to remove God as the author of sin in the Calvinistic system. (Much of the discussion was led by Date, with Davidson doing most of the pressing for clarity. For this reason, I will primarily be addressing their interactions.)

Compatibilism Defined

The heart of the discussion begins about 15 minutes in as Date gives a succinct definition: “Compatibilism… is just the idea that… determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. The whole point of compatibilism is to affirm determinism.” Determinism, from a theological standpoint, is the idea that everything which happens, to the most minute detail, is by God’s determined will. This, of course, raises the question of how we factor in the idea that humans have free will. Date explains that “they have a sufficient degree of freedom as to be held morally responsible.” Elliott adds, “God determines all things, but He does it in such a manner that you will freely choose to do so.” 

This determination is made effective by God’s decree prior to creation. Biblical evidence is cited from Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28, which show God’s will being accomplished through the sinful acts of men. However, Molinists equally appeal to such passages for support. Like Calvinists, they affirm God’s decree of all things prior to creation. The key difference is that in Molinism, God’s decree is based in part on His foreknowledge of what human beings would do (allowing for libertarian free will), as opposed to His foreknowledge simply being what He has determined them to do in compatibilistic Calvinism.

The Author Analogy

From here, Date goes on to give his author analogy, as he explains how God’s decree plays out in space-time events in a comparable way to those of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” The world imagined by Tolkien is actualized within those stories, but the characters experience them in their own sense of time with their own sense of agency. Date gives a good summary of his mission in this discussion when he says: “I want to encourage my fellow Calvinists to think of… the relationship between God and time as something analogous to the relationship between an author and a story, because I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” He hopes to solidify the discussion around this analogy, as opposed to robot or puppet analogies (which he rejects), adding, “Let the battle happen on that ground.”

What then is the advantage of the author analogy? For Date, the difference is what he calls a “transcendence gap.” In other words, because God exists in the eternal realm and we live out His decree in space-time by our own thoughts and actions, God is not responsible for what we do. This transcendence gap is, in his words, “critical for maintaining moral culpability for humans.” The blame for sin then resides in humans, even though God has determined prior to our existence that we would sin. Since Date has admitted that non-Calvinists have good reason to object to the idea that God causes people to sin, the point of debate becomes clear. Does the eternal decree “cause” people to sin? If it does, compatibilism fails to defend the holiness of God. All three Reformed participants agree that the decree does not equate to “cause.” And this is where I am left genuinely perplexed.

Competing Views of Freedom

Representing the non-Calvinists in the audience, Davidson challenges this notion: “I think the disconnect is that if there is a first cause, and it is not the individual agent, that the freedom is then compromised.” To this Short responds, “You are presupposing incompatibilism.” This phrase will be repeated multiple times throughout the remainder of the discussion, as the Reformed participants take the position that the libertarian concept of free will makes false assumptions about freedom that the compatibilist successfully avoids. 

Date explains: “I come to the issue of freedom, and I try to make no assumptions about what that requires. And one of the assumptions I refuse to make is that in order for an agent’s choice to be free, their choice has to ultimately, full stop, originate with them.” At one point, Davidson seeks clarification: “It just needs to SEEM as though there could be the alternate possibility.” Date gladly affirms: “That’s great! I like that!” 

This exchange reveals that in compatibilism, the choice between competing options is an illusion. You may think you are making the choice, but it has been chosen for you. Yet you take responsibility for that choice because you are the one who performs it, believing you are making it. Date summarizes: “Their will is influenced by all sorts of factors including their genetics, their prenatal development, their upbringing, their life experiences, their addictions, everything. Their friends, their relationships, all of that influence the will, including their own desire, and the result of all that influence is that the will makes a choice. But… that choice has been pre-determined by God.” Wouldn’t all those factors be included in the eternal decree? 

Force vs. Decree?

Date further explains: “Ultimately, they make a choice, and God has decreed that, but nothing is forcing their hand.” He goes on: “…there is no programming that is firing, in the world God has created, that brings about the action that God has decreed. So that’s what I mean by free. There is literally nothing forcing the agent’s hand to do what they nevertheless do, exactly as God has decreed.” 

In response, Davidson makes what I believe to be a fairly obvious point: technically, they are “forced.” Date asks what is forcing them, to which he responds, “the authorship.” And I have to ask, if the eternal decree of God is not powerful to “force” what happens in space-time, what is it good for? It seems to be simultaneously all-powerful and powerless. Anyone noticing a problem here? 

Date resorts to his escape hatch of the transcendence gap by insisting that the “authorship” doesn’t exist in time, therefore it doesn’t force individuals to act out the parts that have been written for them from eternity past. All that matters is that we “seem” to have a choice. That illusion of choice is sufficient to make each of us morally responsible, and it lets the God of Reformed theology off the hook. How convenient!

How the Analogy Fails

What the author analogy ultimately presents is an illusion of reality. Just as the choices of characters in a novel do not originate in themselves, but in the mind of the author, so too do the sinful thoughts, desires, and actions of human beings originate in the mind and will of God, according to compatibilism. Fictional characters are incapable of producing anything that doesn’t reside in their source. Just the same, human beings could not produce sinful thoughts and behaviors that did not originate in God. Fictional characters possess no actual agency, but we willfully adopt the illusion for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. In compatibilism, human agency is likewise a useful illusion. We are left to deceive ourselves into believing that we are actually making choices, and that we were able to have chosen differently than we did. Since all things that happen in space-time are included in God's decree, this illusion of free choice is also decreed from eternity past. 

The transcendence gap, as described by Date, only succeeds in separating reality from fiction. It effectively does the opposite of what he hopes by diminishing the sinfulness of sin. An author can write stories full of violence, death, and all sorts of sinful behaviors, yet himself retain innocence of those sins because those fictional characters are not actually sinning in real life. Their world carries no actual consequences for real individuals. They do not actually suffer pain or misery or death, so we do not hold the author accountable for any crimes or acts of cruelty committed within the story. Yet we know that what we experience is real. All the evils of this world are real. Our suffering is real, and we cannot be convinced otherwise. Likewise, our sin is real, and because it is, our guilt is real and deserving of judgment. And because all the evils of this world are real, the grace of God is every bit as real, possessing incomparable value.

Conclusion

If God has "authored" all history, He has inevitably written every aspect, including all the suffering and death that results from the sin that is within that story. To argue that God has meticulously authored every detail of the story and deny that He has authored sin is an irreconcilable contradiction. This analogy leaves us to conclude that either the “reality” we experience is pure fiction, or God is the author of real sin. The former does damage to God's power to create real beings made in His image. The latter is fatal to His holiness (Jeremiah 32:35). Neither option is acceptable, therefore we should reject the author analogy. If it is the best representation of compatibilism, we should reject compatibilism. If compatibilism is the best Reformed theology has to offer, we should reject Reformed theology. As Date said, “I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” The author analogy cannot remove that meaningful sense, therefore we are right to maintain our objections.

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.

What Happened to Derek Webb?

It's the fall of 1999, and as the world lies restless in anticipation of Y2K-inflicted chaos, I find myself in Visalia, CA with tickets to see Caedmon's Call. The Christian alternative music scene is thriving in the wake of the breakout successes of bands like Jars of Clay and Sixpence None the Richer, and Caedmon's offers their own take of artistically relevant and lyrically profound folk-rock. Unlike the aforementioned bands, they take no interest in crossing over to the secular market, with lyrics that are transparently Christian, often with specific references to Bible accounts. No, Caedmon's Call were far more interested in appealing to the deep-thinking Christian, and as the new millennium approaches, "40 Acres," their sophomore album, finds them emerging as one of the brightest and most talented bands in all of Christian music.

On this night, "unknown" singer/songwriters Jill Phillips and Bebo Norman set the stage for Caedmon's and their faith-filled "coffeehouse" music. The band, featuring three alternating lead vocalists, delivers solid renditions of their best-loved songs, and a cover of "Walk On the Ocean" for good measure. Between songs, singer Derek Webb steps forward to deliver a rant a la Rich Mullins about Joshua Harris' book, "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." Clearly he is not a fan, and by the sound of it, neither is the audience. This is what we love about Derek. He is willing to speak his mind and challenge the status quo. He's authentic, and this comes through in his songs. Whether he is writing about his struggles with temptation ("Standing Up For Nothing"), or the frustration of being single and waiting ("Table For Two"), we feel like we know Derek, and Derek knows us. The band closes the night with the biggest hit of Webb's career, "Thankful," an encapsulation of Reformed theology in just over 4 minutes. "Yes, by grace I have been saved, through faith, it's not my own…" This is the anthem of the serious-minded Christian, the one who gives God all the glory.

Fast forward to 2017, and Derek Webb releases his latest solo album, "Fingers Crossed," announcing to the world that he is no longer a follower of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but he is now boldly proclaiming the "gospel" of atheism. How did this happen? How could someone who so passionately devoted himself to Christianity make such a sharp turn? What happened to Derek Webb?

There are a number of things we could point to, most obviously his recent divorce from his wife of 13 years, to which he accepts responsibility. He fell into sin, and sin is deceptive (Hebrews 3:12-13). Yet many believers who do so recognize their need for Christ and repent. Derek took the opposite route. In the wake of his sinful choices, he has come to see that he is a better man by embracing his freedom apart from Christ. In his mind, free will and Christianity are incompatible. In a recent interview on the ex-Christian podcast, "The Life After," Webb talks about how he now has victory over pornography after 20 years of struggling. He credits his ability to choose to do what is best for himself, rather than to wait on God to make the changes in him. And here it becomes clear where he went wrong in his theology. It all comes back to that line, "through faith, it's not my own." Derek Webb never took responsibility for his faith.

For many Calvinists, faith is the gift of God spoken of in Ephesians 2:8, which reads: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." The interpretation offered by Webb in "Thankful" is one that is proven false through analysis of the original Greek pronouns used by the Apostle Paul. When Paul speaks of what is "not of yourselves," he refers back to the whole equation of salvation that precedes it, not specifically to faith. Therefore, Paul is saying that we are powerless to save ourselves, and in combination with verse 9, "not of works, lest anyone should boast," he is driving home the point that the works of the law are not meritorious for salvation, but it is by God's grace that we can be saved through placing our faith in the work of Christ. Webb's interpretation is a common mistake, and sadly, it illustrates where his philosophy went wrong. He saw faith as something that was happening to him. He didn't have faith. Faith had him. And as such, when doubts emerged, it was evidence that he wasn't given the gift of saving faith. 

Consider these lyrics from the song which closes his new album, "Goodbye For Now:"

"So either you aren't real
Or I am just not chosen
Maybe I'll never know
Either way my heart is broken
As I say, goodbye for now"

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is a central tenet of Calvinism, representing the "P" in the acronym "TULIP." It is commonly credited with giving the believer assurance of salvation. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the one who is chosen from eternity past for salvation (unconditional election) will be regenerated (irresistible grace), and their faith, because it is the effectual work of God, will persevere to the end. Therefore the Calvinist can rest in the assurance that because they are chosen, they will remain faithful. Unfortunately, while the intent is to give the believer assurance that he/she is saved, the opposite is often the case, and we see this evidenced in the lyrics above. Derek is convinced that he wasn't chosen because his faith did not last. Lack of assurance is nothing new for the Calvinist, or any believer for that matter, and was even the basis for another Caedmon's Call song, "Prove Me Wrong," written and performed by other members of the group: 
 
"Sometimes I fear, maybe I'm not chosen
You've hardened my heart like Pharaoh
That would explain why life is so hard for me

And I am sad that Esau hated
Crying against what's fated
Saying father, please, is there any left for me

Cast out my doubts, please prove me wrong
'Cause these demons can be so headstrong
Make my walls fall, please prove me wrong
'Cause this resentment's been building
Burn them up with your fire so strong
If you can before I bail, please prove me wrong"

These lyrics are haunting now that Derek has in fact bailed. So why then has he bailed entirely? Why not simply believe that Christianity is true, but he is on the outside of it, needing to get in? Listening to his interviews, it seems that much of his rejection of the faith is based on practicality. Because he now finds life so much more livable by taking ownership of his actions, it shows that something is horribly false about the claims of Christianity. Though he doesn't believe in God, he remains a Calvinist. He likens his views on theology to his views on Star Wars or other works of fiction. It is a source of conviction, and in his mind, the Bible is solidly on the side of a deterministic God who elects some people to eternal glory, and others to hell. From his perspective, if God is real, He is a horrible monster (his interview comments use much harsher terms) responsible for all the evil in the world, and Derek is a "reprobate," created specifically to glorify God in his never-ending torment for the sins that he has been determined to commit. Honestly, I can't blame him for rejecting such a god. I can't think of a good reason why a "reprobate" should worship someone who has made him for such a reason. This is such a tragic misunderstanding of the character of God!

So what do we conclude from this? I think it raises some hard questions for the Calvinist that need to be answered. Clearly, Derek Webb was, and still is in some sense, a Calvinist. This doesn't mean that Calvinists aren't Christians, but it does show that the two aren't synonymous. Most Reformed types will cite the words of the Apostle Paul below to argue that people reject Calvinism because their minds are darkened to it:
 
"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." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

How do we make sense of the fact that Derek embraced the "Doctrines of Grace," if those doctrines are spiritually discerned? If we say that his mind was enlightened by the Holy Spirit, why did he not persevere in the faith? Some will say that he didn't really believe, but that is hard to square with the Calvinistic understanding of the above verse. The way I see it, the Calvinist is left with two options:

1. The unbeliever is able to understand and willfully embrace the truth of the Gospel (which appears to violate "total inability"), or 
2. The true believer is able to renounce his faith (which violates "perseverance of the saints"). 

This conundrum seems to point to the solution that John Calvin himself offered:

“Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.2.11)

This "evanescent grace," is a concept that most Calvinists shrink away from. It is a terrifying thought, that God could determine for them to have such an assurance of salvation and genuine faith that could one day, even in the moment before they die, be taken suddenly so as "better to convict them, and leave them without excuse." For many, this is not an acceptable thought, and I cannot blame those who reject it. Yet they will hold onto Calvinism with no better option. Maybe Derek will return to his faith in the end? Maybe. Yet, I am certain that many before him and many after will embrace Christianity just as fervently and ultimately die in their unbelief. As Calvin said, "experience shows" this to be the case. 

Derek's dilemma of choosing to believe in an evil God with wicked intentions and a godless existence of freedom and personal responsibility is completely reversed from the truth. There is no real freedom to be found in atheism. From a naturalistic perspective, we are biological machines, the sum products of cause and effect extending backwards endlessly. To appeal to free will is to appeal to something that lies outside of natural processes, as apologist Tim Stratton demonstrates through his "freethinking argument." Instead, freedom of the will is something that is reflective of the image of God in man. We are granted the ability to choose, and the Bible consistently appeals to us to make the choice to believe in the one true God, and to act in obedience to Him. Freedom is only possible through God, and it saddens me that Derek has it backwards. He always has. He never "chose" to put his faith in Jesus Christ. He did not accept responsibility for it, and he does not accept responsibility for losing it. This is what happened to Derek Webb. 

My prayer is that Derek will allow his skepticism to extend to his Calvinistic presuppositions, and most importantly to his atheism. He once sang that "love is different than you think." I would like to challenge him to consider that maybe, just maybe, faith is different than you think. And consequently, God is much, much different than you think. You have a choice, Derek. Choose to believe in the goodness of God. Choose to believe that God loves you, because He is love (1 John 4:7-10). Choose life so that you may live (Deuteronomy 30:19). It's not too late to make faith your own.