Dan Chapa

more power to him... He's earned it by putting up great numbers, bouncing back from a whoopsie , leading the cowboys into one of their best starts I can remember and being the face of the franchise. I think the future looks good. Hope there is enough money left to sign Newman, Barber (restricted free agent), Adams, Jones and Crayton.

Recently the Cowboys signed one Terry "Tank" Johnson to play nose tackle. This was quite a controversial move because Tank was suspended for a history of issues including gun charges and an alleged DWI. Tank was a free agent because the Bears cut him after he messed up his last chance with them. Why did the Cowboys do it? In part because they lost Jason Ferrason their starting nose tackle in the first game of the season for the season. Not that Jason's backup Jay Ratliff is doing a bad job. I like Ratliff quite a bit. He's quick and can generate a good inside pass rush. I think of Ratliff as more than his previous role of nickel pass rusher. But Ratliff is small by NFL nose tackle standards. But I don't think that's the main reason. I think Jerry Jones wanted to pass up on a bargain. Tank is a good player and he was dirt cheap (basically free). The cowboys cut Nate Jones to make room on their roster for Tank. They signed Tank for $800K but he only gets a prora...

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Both can't be true at the same time. Compatiblism is the idea that determinism is compatible with human freedom. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens had a preceding cause such that it necessarily happens and the opposite cannot happen. Freedom (as compatiblists explain it) is freedom from compulsion. IE no one is forcing you to do something you don't want to do. You are able to act according to your strongest desire. However you are unable to act contrary to your strongest desire. And that desire comes from our nature and our nature comes in part from God's creating us the way He did and in part from God putting us in the circumstances He does, and in no part from us as an indeterministic cause of our actions. Arminianism is both a philosophical and a soterialogical system. As a philosophical system, it embraces libertarian free will and denies determinism outright. This can be seen clearly from the writings of it...

Recently, a poster named Remonstrant shared a few sites arguing for compatiblistic determinism and asked me whether I thought compatiblism was mutually exclusive with Arminianism. I would like to address this in two parts. First, I wanted to provide some comments on the article then answer the question of how the view squares with Arminianism. This article by Ned Markosian was the longest and most in depth: http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/nmarkos/Papers/Comtac.pdf In it Ned advocates for a view in which Agent Causation and Compatible Determinism co-exist. Ned argues that 1) Compatible Determinism is the best way of explaining Agent Causation, as it resolves various issues with indeterministic Agent Causation and 2) Agent Causation (even if Compatiblistic) is sufficient to explain moral responsibility. My take… Ned proposes various definitions of Agent Causation, all of which fail in one aspect or another. But Ned’s point is that agent causation is compatible with compatible determinism. ...

Here's the 5 th and final article of the Remonstrants: ART. V. That those who an incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his lifegiving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict. and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable. through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doc...

Here's the 4 th article of the Remonstrants: ART. IV. That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, elm neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost, -Acts vii., and elsewhere in many places. This one's fairly simple. We need God's grace for salvation, but that grace is resistible . Calvinists agree that we need grace for salvation, but disagree that grace is resistable . They assert that God's grace for salvation is irresistible . They say that for those God is trying to save, they must believe and ca...

Here's the third article of the Remonstrants: ART. III. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. b: "Without me ye can do nothing." This of course is teaching man in a fallen state is lost and sinfully and can do nothing to bring bring about his salvation. This agrees with the Calvinistic point on total depravity. On this point Arminians agree. Arminians are not Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians. (ie the view point that man can save himself or that man initiates salvation and God completes it...

Here's the second point of the Remonstrants: ART. II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world." This one's simple. Christ died for everybody but only believers actually end up in heaven. Calvinists claim that Christ didn't die for everyone. How does this work? In the passover, the lamb was killed and it's blood was applied. It's a two step process. In the case of Christ He ...

Here's the first article of the Remonstrants: ARTICLE I. That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also. The first thing to note here is that God is choosing to save out of the fallen & sinful race. This distinguishes Arminianism from ...

An Arminian ( strictly defined) is one who holds to the 5 points of the Remonstrants (Arminius' followers). More broadly defined Arminians are non-Calvinist Protestants . Here's a link to the 5 points of the Remonstrants. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.vii.cliii.htm I intend to go through the points and look at each one.

Recapping the last game against the Vikings.... We had a nice win over the Vikings 24-14. Romo was doing quite well the first half, but did next to nothing in the second half. He hurt his hamstring and I really wonder if he could throw the ball more than 20 years. The cowboys had to rely on the run in the second half. Marion Barber did a great job, rushing for a touchdown and also stringing together a series of important first downs late in the game. Two big plays canceled each other, the Vikings running back a fumble and the Cowboys running back a blocked kick. The Cowboys defense played good but not great. Roy Williams finally made a play!!! The pass rush looked great and Hatcher forced Adrian Peterson to fumble. Nice to see Hatcher develop. Gregg Ellis did well in his first start, getting 2 sacks. He's got 4 on the year, but looks to pressure Ware who has 6 but with 5 more games than Ellis. With Ware, Ellis, and Spencer we should get the QB all day. The game ball goes to the Vik...

Having just read I Thessalonians, here are a few of my comments. The primary topics of the book are: persecution, Christ’s return, sexual purity and love. The occasion for the book was Paul’s hearing that the Thessalonians church was persevering through great persecution. Paul had only spent a month in Thessalonica and was chased away all to quickly. He had wanted to teach them more and feared that the Gospel hadn’t had sufficient time to sink into the community. But when he heard they were doing well and undergoing persecution triumphantly he wrote them to praise them, continue his teaching and explain his desire to see them. A few key passages that stuck out for me were: 1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Here we have faith, hope and love, which reminds me of 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is char...

Recently I asked Turretinfan if he would be interested in a debate on the correct interpretation of Romans 9. This came about through an aritcle I wrote on Romans 9 about 5 years ago. Here’s a link: http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/romans9.html Turretinfan mentioned he objected to practically every aspect of my interpretation, but we haven’t had an opportunity to go through the passage together. So I figured this would be a good way to do so. I have proposed some rules as to how to approach the debate and asked him to take a shot at the resolution. We will see where this goes.

The Cowboys are 6-1 going into the buy week. It's good their getting a chance to rest. The main thing right now is for Tony Romo to recover from his hamstring injury as he got hurt during the last game. The big picture is: 1) The Cowboys have a solid QB in Romo. Granted every once in a while he has a bad day, but he's the type of QB who can win a superbowl. 2) The 2 RB system is more or less effective. Marion Barber is perhaps a bit better than Jones, but the combo is really tough to deal with. 3) The defense is getting healthy and better. They are starting to put on a good pass rush which is key. 4) We have the best record in the NFC and only lost to the Patriots who are a machine. That said, we haven't beaten any really good teams so far, but we have won the games we were supposed to. 5) I think we have a legit shot at going to the superbowl this year.

I grew up in a Christian home and God saved me when I was very young. When I was 5 years old I went foreword one night at the service and the pastor expressed concern because I was young. We went back to his office and after we talked for a while and he asked me some questions he permitted me to be baptized. So I was baptized when I was 5. To be honest, I don't recall a time in my life when I wasn't trusting in Christ for my salvation. I realize this isn't much of a dramatic testimony. Some people can go on and on about how God saved them out of this or that sinful lifestyle and can talk about a drastic change in there life. I was a bit young for that. So that's a cool story they have to tell. But I get to say how God has been with me all along, and I have had a relationship with Christ for most of my life. The Gospel really is quite simple. I am a sinner, Christ is the Son of God and the only Savior, heaven is sweet, hell is hot, and by what Christ did through His deat...

Simon Bisscop (better known by his Latinized last name, Episcopius) was James Arminius’ student and close friend. He attended the University of Leiden when the hot debates between Arminius and Gomarus were going on. He visited Arminius on his death bed and after Arminius died, Episcopius experienced persicution, being excluded from the Lord’s table and blocked from the pastorate. Episcopius was one of the authors and 43 signers of the 5 points of the Remonstrants. http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.vii.cliii.htm After that Episcopius became a professor of theology at Leiden, but there he experience the same controversy that Amrinius did. Only now the conflict had gotten too hot and had moved from verbal to physical. Arminians were being attached in the streets. They needed protection. Episcopius saw only one answer, a national synod. Wtnbogaert, the leader of the Reomstrants, feared for his life and fled the country, leaving Episcopius as the Arminian leader going into t...

This is my first entry so I figured I would start with why I am an Arminian. I grew up in a conservative Baptist church, which unbeknownst to me, was more Calvinist then Arminian. They taught both predestination and freewill and said it was all a mystery. When I was in high school a friend challenged my views. I hadn't really thought about any of the issues and he was strong in the word. I couldn't answer his questions but was leery of some of his interpretations of scripture. But after a while I broke down. The first point of Calvinism that I agreed with was Total Depravity. I read Luther's Bondage of the Will and that was it. To this day, I have never question that view. At that time, I called myself a Calvinists. But one night while I was reading scripture I came across Hebrews 10:26-29. I was shocked. Why hadn't this passage ever been talked about in Church. Up till this point, I had never questioned eternal security. I decided not to decided anything. I spent the n...