Dan Chapa

Turretinfan responded to my comments on triablogue: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html Over on his blog: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-response-to-godismyjudge.html I have responded back on triablogue. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html

Here's my next argument that Christ died for those who ultimately perish Luke 22: 17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. This passage is the institution of the Lord’s supper. Christ gives the bread to the disciples (including Judas) and says that it’s given for you. My argument is simple: P1: Judas was among those for whom Christ gave his body P2: Judas was ultimately lost C1: Therefore, Christ gave His body for those who were ultimately lost. Calvinists try to deny P1 in two ways. Some say that “y

There are several passages of the word of God that teach that Christ died for those that ultimately perish. These passages don't teach that Christ died for all, because they only talk about specific groups or even one individual. Never-the-less, these are powerful arguments that Christ died for all, because they disprove substantially every argument that is used by Calvinists to show that Christ died for the elect alone. I plan on examine 3 passages starting with Hebrews 10. Hebrews 10: 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanct

The previous 7 arguments as to why Christ died for all men have been based on systematic theology, logic and history. The next three will be based on scripture and as such they are the strongest. The best is yet to come.

The doctrine of justification by faith is the teaching that God pronounces sinners, who are believers, not guilty, based on what Christ has done. God counts our faith as righteousness, based on Christ. Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Phi 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: This doctrine clearly teaches that the blessings Christ are applied to no one apart from faith. Those that have faith are justified, tho

Dallas is coming off a nice with over the Giants and are playing the Skins at 4 today. Based on where I live, this one's important to me. At church today I dressed my 16 month old son in a cowboys shirt. We both got some comments getting out of the nursery ... My wife didn't like it much, but you need to teach your children right when they are young. The Redskins have a good defense, especially their secondary. The boys need to get things going on the ground and to get TO involved early. We also need to get to Campbell, as I don't think he does well under pressure. We also need to shut down Portis and Betts .

Recently Wes (aka Remonstrant) asked me whether I thought Compatiblism was compatible with Arminianism. I responded here: http://danchapa.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-compatibalism-mutually-exclusive.html#links arguing that compatiblism was incompatible with Arminian Soteriology and here: http://danchapa.blogspot.com/2007/10/compatiblistic-agent.html arguing that compatiblism could not use agent causation to explain responsibility. Wes offer this counter: “The usual notions, that in compatibilism, God is ultimately accountable for the acts and thoughts of His creatures, and God’s universal offer of salvation is not sincere, are not completely right. At least as it seems to me, especially when I could advance the claim that before the creation of His creatures, the usually omniscient God was somehow (How? Maybe God withheld His knowledge, or He factored certain contingencies in, or we can simply say He had created us free [in a compatibilist sense]) ignorant of the future choices of

Many Calvinists argue that if God wanted to save people through Christ’s death and they don’t end up saved, God failed. But God can’t fail. So Christ’s death was never intend to save all people. Regarding the will of God it’s vitally important to break the will of God down with respect to it’s object. If He want’s Himself to do something, His will is always done, for who can stop Him? Daniel 4:35And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? But if He wants us to do something, His will may not be done. Psalms 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. At first glance, this only seems to strengthen the Calvinist argument. They think they have Arminians in a trap. Either A) God failed for Himself to bring about our salvation or B) man, not God saves. Neither alter

Let’s suppose that I offered you $100, but I didn’t actually have $100. Can my offer be said to be sincere? In the same way, the Gospel message is preached to all men offering them forgiveness. But if Christ is not the foundation of salvation for all men, 1) God cannot justly forgive their sins because Christ is not offered as their substitute and 2) the sincerity of the Gospel offer is in serious question, because God cannot fulfill it, does not want to fulfill it and causes it not to be fulfilled. Many Calvinists are quick to counter that there can be no “run on the bank”, because God does not cause the reprobate to respond to the Gospel. But that’s besides the point. The sincerity of the offer and God’s inability to forgive are actual, rather than hypothetical. We don’t need to suppose a reprobate person to come to these conclusions. Some Calvinists point out that those that reject want to reject. But this also is besides the point. The issue with regard to sincerity is not

Many Calvinist’s affirm that Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. In doing so, they seem to embrace the position almost universally accepted by the church. But what do they really mean? They don't mean Christ's death can save the reprobate. Rather, they mean that Christ’s death would saved everyone, if God had willed it to be offered for all men. This removes its actual sufficiency and only makes it a hypothetical sufficiency. While it may be true that Christ would have had to suffer any more than He did to save more, had they been elected, it is not true that Christ’s blood can save them. Christ’s blood was not actually offered to God on the reprobate’s behalf, nor was His blood intended to be the basis of their salvation. The Calvinist position removes the provisional aspect of salvation talking the weight out of the historic position of the Church: sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. In this regard, Calvinists stand alone agai

second half A PROLOG, B GOD, C CREATION, D PROVIDENCE, E PREDESTINATION, F THE LAW, G THE GOSPEL, H SOTERIOLOGY, H.1 Conditional Election, H.2 Depravity, H.3 Christ's death, H.4 Resistible Grace, H.5 Perseverance, I THE CHURCH, W HISTORY, X DEBATES, Y COWBOYS, Z ABOUT ME

testing ways to organize tags into a tables of contents 1 PROLOG, 2 GOD, 3 CREATION, 4 PROVIDENCE, 5 PREDESTINATION, 6 THE LAW, 7 THE GOSPEL, 8 SOTERIOLOGY , 8.a Conditional Election, 8.b Depravity, 8.c Christ's death, 8.d Resistible Grace, 8.e Perseverance, 9 THE CHURCH, 20 HISTORY, 30 DEBATES, 40 COWBOYS, 99 ABOUT ME

We play the Giants tomorrow and then the Skins next week. From a division standings perspective, these two games will decide who will have the upper ground going down the stretch. On paper the cowboys have the upper hand on the Giants. They are 7 & 1, the Giants are 6 & 2. The cowboys only loss has come by the Patriots, the best team in the NFL right now. The Cowboys beat the Giants in the opening game. But the Giants have been on a real role, winning their last 6 games. They are playing in NY and the Giants were missing key players last go around. Patriots aside, NY will probably be the best team the Cowboys have faced to date. Philly and Chicago were good last year, but they have struggled this year, so really their opening day win against NY was there best win so far. The Giants have a lot of weapons, Shockey up the middle, Burress on the deep ball a solid committee of running backs and to top it off Manning is finally playing like he isn’t just Patton’s spoiled little broth

Christ, by God's plan, is the sure foundation of salvation. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Peter 1:20) When talking about God's plan, theologians talk about the order of the decrees. This is a logical, not a temporal order. Because this plan was from the foundation of the world, the issue is logically what is based on what, not temporally, which came first. On this issue Calvinists come in 3 flavors: supralapsarian , sublapsarian / infralapsarian and Amyraldian . Amyraldian's teach that Christ died for everyone. Sublapsarian / infralapsarians say God first decreed the fall, then elected some for salvation. Supralapsarians say God first elected some for glory other for destruction, then He decreed the fall. The question at hand is relationship between the decree that Christ the foundation of salvation and the decree of salvation. What is the relationship between Christ's death and predes

Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and God is the Truth. We are commanded to believe. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23) A person who trust in Christ, believes Christ died for him. So if Christ didn’t die for someone, the Truth requires that person to believe a falsehood (ie that Christ died for him).

I don't normally hold to irresistible grace, but after Calvin did about everything he could to avoid saying Christ died for everyone, the Holy Spirit finally pinned him down and twisted his arm till he exclaimed : The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. Calvin on Jude 4: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.viii.ii.ii.html

D. V. I plan on doing a Jay Leno like top 10 list countdown on the top ten reasons to believe Christ died for everyone.

Owen's Argument Chapter 7 Section 6 P1: the strict connection between Christ’s offering and His intercession gives assurance to those who believe Christ offered for them P2: Arminians think Christ may offer for those whom He does not intercede. C1: Under Arminian thinking, those who believe Christ offered Himself to the Father for them have no assurance. Scripture supporting P1: “Who is he that condemneth ? “It is Christ that died,” (Romans 8:34) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html Refutation The conclusion does not follow, because a strict connection between Christ’s offering and His intercession is not the only way to explain that fact that those who believe that Christ died for them have assurance. They have assurance because: Christ intercedes for those who believe. So it’s true that everyone who believes Christ offered for him has assurance, its not true because of P1. C1 should read: C1*: Under Arminian thinking, those who believe Christ offered Himse

Owen's Argument - Chapter 7 Section 5 P1: In John 17 Christ both offered and interceded P2: Christ intercedes for the elect alone C1: therefore, Christ offered for the elect alone Scripture quoted in support of P1: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Hebrews 9:12) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html Refutation P1 & P2 are true but the conclusion does not follow. Just because Christ offered for everyone He intercedes for does not mean He intercedes for everyone He offers for. Christ's offering is the basis for His intercession, so of course Christ talks about both in John 17.

Owen's Death of Christ - Chapter 7 Section 4 In this section Owens relies on arguments he makes in chapter 3. As such, his argument here lacks a full explanation in chapter 7. So I will bypass it and perhaps come back to chapter 3 latter. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html

Recap of Owen's Argument - Chapter 7 Section 3 P1: Christ's intercession is not vocal or supplication, but rather a presentation of Christ Himself P2: The presentation of Christ to God is joined with the offering of Christ to God C1: Therefore, intercession is joined with the offering of Christ to God Scripture supporting P1: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:12-14) For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: (Hebrews 9:24) http://www

Here is Owen’s primary argument: P1: A High Priest wouldn’t be fulfilling his duties if he offers a sacrifice on someone’s behalf, but didn’t intercede for them P2: Christ is a faithful High Priest, fulfilling His duties C1: therefore, Christ does not make an offering for someone without also interceding for them. Scripture support for P1: “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John 2:1-2 I support of his argument, he makes another: P3: Christ offered His blood to God at the entrance of the holy place P4: Christ entered the holy place by His blood to intercede for the elect C2: Therefore, offering and intercession are two parts of the same tabernacle function Scripture support for P3 & P4: But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest o

Chapter 7 Section 1 Owens Argument #1 P1: intercession is inseparably connected with oblation P2: Christ’s intercession is made for the elect alone C1: Therefore, Christ’s oblation was made for the elect alone Scripture support for P1: “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities,” . “He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors; Isaiah 53:11-12 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Romans 8:32-34 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.vii.vii.html Refutation P1 & P2 are valid, the conclusion does not follow. Just because Christ died for everyone that He intercedes for does not mea

Often Calvinists appeal to John Owen’s the Death of Death in the Death of Christ as the definitive work on the atonement. By simply mentioning the name they have thereby proven that Christ did not die for everyone, but rather for the elect alone. I intend to address some of Owen’s arguments. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is a difficult read. It’s massive, complex and quite detailed. Owen’s style is as much rhetorical as it is argumentative, which makes for volume. As such, Owen’s work is not as accessible to today’s reader as perhaps it could have been. So my strategy is to distill his arguments down to simple syllogism and then address them. I will not quote Owen’s text at length. It’s just too bulky and awkward. I will however, provide links back to the section I am addressing. I plan on starting at chapter 7. Chapter VII. "Containing reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of Christ to be one entire means respecting the accomplishment of the same proposed end

After what the Eagles did to us last year, it's quite satisfying to come to their home town and blow them out. The Cowboys played great. Romo looked good and Owens was on fire. MB III and Julius both looked good. Our offense is really tough to keep up with. The Eagles came out firing and looked like they would put up a good fight, but they couldn't keep it going. This was the first of a three game divisional stretch . Next is the Giants and then the Skins. Both of those games have bigger playoff implications than this one, but for me beating the Eagles is about as good as it gets.

Here are Arminius thoughts on concurrence: IX. The last efficiency of God concerning the Beginnings of sin, is the divine concurrence, which is necessary to produce every act; because nothing whatever can have an entity except from the first and chief Being, who immediately produces that entity. The concurrence of God is not his in, mediate influx into a second or inferior cause, but it is an action of God immediately flowing into the effect of the creature, so that the same effect in one and the same entire action may be produced simultaneously by God and the creature. Though this concurrence is placed in the mere pleasure or will of God, and in his free dispensation, yet he never denies it to a rational and free creature, when he has permitted an act to his power and will. For these two phrases are contradictory, "to grant permission to the power and the will of a creature to commit an act," and "to deny the divine concurrence without which the act cannot be done."

Many Calvinist argue that our actions either happen randomly or by a cause. Jonathan Edwards argues something of this sort in Freedom of the Will. This is a tough argument. We can’t really explain why we choose what we do. We can look at the various factors in a choice. There are many things that are necessary to make a choice, such as the object that we choose (let’s say icecream) and the desire to choose it. We need the object and the desire to be able to choose it. But in some cases we eat icecream and in some cases we don’t. So the object and desire are necessary for choice, but not sufficient for choice. That is to say, we don’t act on every desire and no object is selected all the time. So it’s tough to answer the argument. And the reason this is the case is because we can’t ask why indefinitely. If we, the agent, are the source of our actions, then we can’t seek a further source. In indeterministic causation, the chain of causes stops and a new chain originates with an indetermi

Phm 1:13 whom I wished to keep with me, so that on your behalf he might minister to me in my imprisonment for the gospel; Phm 1:14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. Paul could have asked Onesimus, Philemon’s escaped servant, to stay with him and help him in the gospel work at Rome. In this way Philemon would benefit Paul’s ministry. But Paul wanted Philemon to have a choice in the matter. The bible says in many places that we have wills and make choices. How should we define choice? The term freewill is redundant. The will cannot be forced, it has to be free. In the same way, the term libertarian freewill is double redundant. Again, the will has to be free and at liberty to be a will. But the term libertarian freewill does help distinguish between another viewpoint, compatiblist freewill. This is the viewpoint that the freedom of the will is consistent with determinism. Determi

We have the Eagles coming up this week on Sunday night in Philadelphia. They scare me. Not because of their brilliant record, the Eagles are having a tough year so far. Its just that I know that it will be sheer hate driving them on. They will be fired up for the game and come at us with everything they have. The keys to the game will be scoring points on that tough defense. We need to get Owens and Whitten involved early and get ahead. I don’t think the Eagles could keep up with us in a blow for blow contest. They will try to shut us down early and force a defensive/field position battle. On defense, I think stopping Westbrook has to be priority 1. That means all facets of his game, he can hurt you as a receiver just as much as a runner. William and Hamlin need to step up big time. We also need to get to McNabb like the Giants did. I really would love to see us beat the Eagles in Philadelphia. Don’t let the records fool you, this is going to be a battle.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. What a wonderful passage. God through Christ was reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them. Hard to explain if you don't think Christ died for everyone. But many Calvinists say that the world only means the elect. They are quick to point out if there sins aren't counted against them, and if they are reconciled to God, then they are saved. So the world must mean only the elect. Hum

I recently read through Romans 9 looking at the Greek. I compared the Westcott & Hort to the Texus Receptus. There were not significant variants. I also looked at the various ways words could be translated and why the translators chose what they did. For the most part, I was good with the King James Version, which is based on the Texus Receptus. I also liked the New American Standard Bible, which is based on the Westcott and Hort. Below are my notes. I started in verse 4 and when to verse 24. In verses I skipped, I didn’t come up with anything different than the King James. Verse 7: (KJVA) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (NASB) nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." ουδ οτι εισιν σπερμα αβρααμ παντες τεκνα αλλ εν ισαακ κληθησεται σοι σπερμα The last word in the translations klethesetai can be translated either ca

Turretinfan has agreed to a debate on the correct interpretation of Romans 9. We have yet to work out the timing, rules and resolution but will be doing so shortly, DV . In the mean time I have been going through Romans 9 and translating it. At the time I wrote this article: http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/romans9.html I hadn't yet studied Greek. So far, my reviewing the chapter in Greek only provides minor modifications to my understanding of the chapter. When I have finished I plan on posting a few translation notes.