I was watching reviews of the Dan Chapa vs Warren McGrew debate.

Here are some thoughts:

Warren and Fisher begin by stating that they think Total Depravity is weird. That they can’t understand why individuals wouldn’t be able to believe the Gospel apart from a divine act of grace. For many people come to believe in cults and whatever else all the time. They are also shocked to consider the idea that God isn’t satisfied with the good deeds of man because they are not done in obedience to him.

Many reformers hold the view that unbelievers do good actions, but they aren’t completely good because they are not done in virtue of obedience to God. Warren and Fisher lack any notion of a morally perfect God that we ought to be in submission to.

Another issue is that we can’t do any good deeds to merit God’s favor. We’re already sinners in a Christian view and have nothing to offer God. But the duo seems to have no reason to suppose man could not pull himself from his preverbal bootstraps and earn God’s favor.

Around 28 minutes in, Warran and Fisher agree that God can be arbitrary. Which is an interesting move for Warren because if God can be arbitrary, then why trust him?

They criticize Dan for Total Depravity not being explicit in the text, but most biblical doctrines aren’t explicit (Trinity, Theology Proper, Eschatology, etc). In fact, McGrew’s Pelagianism isn’t explicitly stated in any of the passages mentioned in the debate. There are other methodological opinions that McGrew and Fisher have that are absurd.

There is some discussion regarding John 6:44.

³⁵ Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet you do not believe.³⁷ Everything that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I certainly will not cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

⁴¹ So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” ⁴² And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” ⁴³ Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop complaining among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets: ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. ⁴⁶ Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life.

Apparently, Chris Fisher understands this as a direct command to the Jews in front of Christ to join and follow his earthly ministry. This is a bit odd because we probably don’t think that merely being a part of Jesus’ earthly ministry is necessary for the acquiring of eternal life.

Furthermore, we know from John himself that Judas was a part of the earthly ministry and was not a recipient of eternal life. Often to alleviate the strength of Jesus’ words freewill theists will appeal to John 12:32. But are we to suspect that Jesus meant that he would draw everyone to participate in his earthly ministry? Fisher prides himself on reading comprehension, but it is ironically he lacks any ability to perform such.

When he compels belief, it is not by the savage constraint of a rapist, but by the wonderful wooing of a lover. Otherwise put, it is by an insight, a teaching, an illumination implanted within the individual, in fulfilment of the Old Testament promise, They will all be taught by God. This is a paraphrase of Isaiah 54:13, addressed to the restored city of Jerusalem that the prophet foresees: ‘All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children’s peace.’ The passage is here applied typologically: in the New Testament the messianic community and the dawning of the saving reign of God are the typological fulfilments of the restoration of Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. In fact, this need for internal illumination is a commonplace of both Testaments. Jeremiah looks forward to a new covenant when God will put his law in the minds of his people, and write it on their hearts (Je. 31:31–34).In Ezekiel, God promises a new heart and a new spirit (Ezk. 36:24–26). The prophet Joel anticipates the time when God will pour out his Spirit not only on Jews but on all people (2:28ff.). In the Fourth Gospel, the new-birth language of John 3 announces the fulfilment of these prospects (cf. notes on 3:5). Jesus in the Farewell Discourse promises the coming of the Holy Spirit–with a teaching role (14:26–27; 16:12–15). This is equivalent to the ‘anointing from the Holy One’ (1 Jn. 2:20, 26–27). Cf. also 1 Corinthians 2:9–16; 2 Corinthians 3:4–4:6; Hebrews 8:6–10:18. Even the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi owed everything to the revelation of the Father (Mt. 16:17 par.). ‘Those who receive this divine illumination and respond to it show by their coming to Christ that they are children and citizens of the new Jerusalem, as the prophet foretold’ (Bruce, p. 157).

Carson, D. A.. The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Kindle Locations 5947-5960). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.

1 Cor 12:3

12 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I don’t want you to be ignorant. ² You know that when you were unbelievers, you were enticed and led astray to worship idols that couldn’t even speak. ³ For this reason I want you to be aware that no one who is speaking by God’s Spirit can say, “Jesus is cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

The dynamic duo only state that this passage isn’t about the ability to state “Jesus is Lord” rather it is about our allegiance to Christ and not some “metaphysical inability”. Suffice it to say, that is an obvious false dichotomy and neither one state anything substantial about the text to show such.

The point is the passage is about the ability of those to believe that Jesus is cursed cannot come from the Spirit, but no one can accept he is Lord without the Spirit. In other words, the Spirit is a necessary precondition to accepting that Christ is Lord.

Warren tries to spin this as those can accept such only if they Submit to God. But he doesn’t lay any of the justifications for that position other than his confidence. Does he show any Greek terms can show such? No. Does he show some commentators? No.

Even Schreiner appealing to Hays shows this understanding:

The truth of Jesus’ lordship is foundational and pivotal for the entire discussion of spiritual gifts, for those who exult in their own gifts are subtly – or perhaps not so subtly – thinking that they are sovereign. As Hays says, ‘[T]hose who are inspired by the Holy Spirit will speak and act in ways that glorify the lordship of Jesus.’47 Confessing Jesus as Lord is not the product of human insight, nor does it derive from human will. On the contrary, it represents the activity of the Holy Spirit, who so works in human beings that they recognize Jesus’ lordship.

Schreiner, Thomas R.. 1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) . InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

The only thing I can guess is that Warran was appealing to the debate over whether how the preposition, but what is the argument for thinking the dative should be locative rather than that of agency? Warren doesn’t give an argument, but it isn’t easily dismissed because it very well and probably is the dative of intrumentality:

The preposition with the dative ἐν πνεύματι could denote the sphere of the Spirit of God, understood in effect as a locative, and could be translated in the Spirit (NJB) or under the influence of the Spirit (REB, JB). But the context and theology of confessional declaration point to the dative of instrumentality, or agency of the Spirit of God. Schrage and Collins both endorse this, and NRSV, RSV, NIV rightly translate by the Spirit of God, which we have simply made more explicit to reflect Paul’s double use of the same syntax. …

More broadly, what experiences and actions, as well as words, will count as manifestations of the Holy Spirit, rather than self-induced experiences, acts, or words, or even those induced by other agencies?

Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 917.

This also fits very nicely with Biblical themes in which true prophetic speech is done only with the Holy Spirit.

That true prophetic speech originated by God’s Spirit is made clear by many Old Testament passages (see esp. Num. 11:25–29; 24:2–3; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23; 2 Sam. 23:2; Neh. 9:30; Isa. 61:1; Joel 2:28; Mic. 3:8; Zech. 7:12) and was a commonplace of early Christian teaching (see, e.g., Luke 1:67; Acts 2:17–18; 19:6; 28:25; Eph. 3:5 1 Pet. 1:21; 1 John 4:1; Rev. 19:10). That is abundantly confirmed throughout 1 Corinthians 12–14.

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 566–567.

We should also note that even if it were the locative dative then it still is consistent with Total Depravity because believer do need to be “except in (that is, under the influence of) the Holy Spirit” in order to state the Christ is Lord.