Dan Chapa

The only one's that beat us were the Patriots, Eagles and Skins. No true blue fan is happy to loose to the Eagles and Skins, but all in all it's been a great regular season. The highlights of the year for me have been Romo's performance, Owen's attitude, Witten & Barber's progress from good to great this year and the pass rush of Ware, Ellis and Rattliff . As for a single favorite play, that's a tough one, but give Nick Folk's kick to bet the Bills a slight edge over Romo to Witten to bet the Lions. The downside has been the way we finished out the year. We always seem to have trouble in December. But we should get key guys back in time for the playoffs. Having Newman at Cornerback is key, and Watkins (although not a starter or hard hitter) is one of our best cover safties . We also need our center, Gurode (not that Proctor's done that bad). But the big plus will be in the wide receiver area. If we can get both Owens and Glenn in the g

Here is th list of the Cowboys' 2008 opponents: Home: New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington Redskins, San Francisco 49ers, Seattle Seahawks, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Baltimore Ravens, Cincinnati Bengals Away: New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Washington Redskins, Arizona Cardinals, St. Louis Rams, Green Bay Packers, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers Don't forget we get two #1 picks this year!

Turretinfan and I have worked out a resolution and process for the debate. Here's the resolution: Romans 9-11 teaches unconditional individual election to salvation. Turretinfan will be affirmative and I will be negative. Further, we have worked out some of the rules. Here's what we have: 1AC - 2k words Neg C-X of Aff (three simple questions (i.e. not multipart or highly argumentative) - answers limited to 500 words) 1NC - 2k words Aff C-X of Neg (same as Neg C-X) 1st Neg Rebuttal (2k words) 1st Aff Rebuttal (2k words) Audience Questions (person to whom question is directed gets 500 words, other side gets 150 word followup) Neg Conclusion - 1k words Aff Conclusion - 1k words That's the visible part. Before the debate gets started we are going to do a few things. 1) I am going to update the paper I put out on Romans 9 The original, which started this whole debate, is here: http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/romans9.html 2) Turr

Here’s a link to Artwork on the Remonstrants. The wording is in Dutch, which I don’t read, but the picks are high quality. http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/remonstrantseprenten Enjoy!!!

I wanted to recap a specific aspect of a debate that took place recently. The debate spans multiple entries on multiple blogs and it went in many directions. So it might be confusing to follow in it's original locations. But I didn't want this point to be lost. So I collected the key points here. The point I wanted to highlight is that: the concepts of libertarian freewill (LFW) and total depravity are compatible LFW is required for moral accountability. God would not justly command the impossible Grace is not forced. In this post I plan on linking to the original discussion, giving the flow of the debate, providing the actual debate, providing some post debate thoughts which expand on the subject by talking about the difference between the law and the Gospel and finally providing a quote from Arminius on the subject. Original Posts Here's the lists of entries of original debate. JC an Arminian: http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/11/prevenient-grace-and-libert

Of course, Christ's birth is the reason for Christmas. Man fell, God loved us anyway and sent His dear Son into the world to redeem us. But actually, that's not the upcoming holiday I had in mind. Consider this passage from Colossians 1: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him,

After reading this post on the ESV: http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-prefer-english-standard-version.html I gave translations some thought. I like litteral translations as well. NASB, NRSV, ESV and NET are all high quality, modern, scholorly translations. But I prefer the KJV. The reason I like the KJV is that it's based on the Textus Receptus. Having read The Revision Revised by John Burgon & The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur Pickering, I find their arguments in favor of the Byzantine texts quite convincing. Modern translations like ESV give a lot of weight to Alexandrian texts. But the KJV is based on the Byzantine, so that's why I prefer it. The issue in a nutshell between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts is one of majority vs. age. The two oldest bibles in the world are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They are from roughly 400 AD. These two have quite a few differences (appox 3,000) but they do have a lot of similariaties as well.

Ever wonder what the differences between Pelagians , semi- Pelagians , Arminians , sub- lapsarians and supra- lapsarians are? These terms often get thrown around, and people sometimes get mad when they are labeled in one group or another. The best way I can explain these differences is through a little analogy. Imagine two guys, George and Matt, are in a boat. George represents God, and Matt represents man. (Some people may have figured out that I used "G" & "M", because my memory is bad.) Pelagians George & Matt are rowing along. Matt falls out and goes under for a bit. He comes up and thrashes around, confused and scared. George calls out, I am over here. Matt sees George, swims over to the boat, and climbs in. In Pelagianism , all that man needs in order to be saved is for God to call them through the Gospel. Then man is able on his own to respond and save himself. Semi- Pelagians George & Matt are rowing along. Matt falls out and goes under for

When I first started learning about Arminianism , I didn't know who I should read. There wasn't much out there at that time and I didn't know where to go, so I just read Arminius himself. That was hard. He's very good, but I could have used an introduction first. Here's a few books I have read over the years, and if I had to do it over again, I would have read them in this order: Intro to Arminianism - Just Getting Started 1. Arminian Theology - Myths and Realities by Rodger Olsen Great at explaining what Arminians believe and don't believe. 2. Life in the Son by Robert Shank Excellent Exegeses of most passages dealing with falling from grace. 3. Free Grace a sermon by John Wesley Gives a short critique of Calvinism. Intermediate Arminianism - Putting the Pieces Together 4. Why I am not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell Strong systematic approach and solid Arminian reasoning. 5. Elect in the Son by Robert Shank A case for corporate election.

Terrell Owens . . . . Vs. John Owen . . . . Round 1: Providence Terrell Owens starts out strong with his views of God’s providence. God may not be there when you want him but he is always on time. -Terrell Owens This is God's world this is not the media's world. -Terell Owens John Owen counters with his view of God’s providence The providence of God protecting and governing all, but watching in an especial manner for the good of them that are his - John Owen Round 2: Morals Owens comes back with his take on morality: Right is right and wrong is wrong. - Terrell Owens But Owen counters: The custom of sinning takes away the sense of it, the course of the world takes away the shame of it - John Owen Round 3: Top performers Owens recently made the top 5 list of all time touchdown receptions. Owen bounces back as he reciently was ranked in the top 5 theologians for Indonesian Christians to read. http://dennytan.blogspot.com/2007/12/pendahuluan.html Round 4: Verboseness Owens ca

In this post I plan on 1) presenting the passages that teach Christ died for the world, 2) presenting my argument, 3) explaining 1 John 2:1-2, 4) going into some detail on the word "world", 5) addressing Owen's counter definition. The Text The New Testament has 10 passages which teach Christ died for the world. 1 John 2:1-2 is one of them. 1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The others are: John 1:29, 3:16, 3:17, 4:42, 6:33, 6:51, 12:47, 1 John 4:14, and 2 Corinthians 5:19. My Argument My argument is relatively simple. P1: Christ died for the whole world P2: The whole world in 1 John 2:2 means everyone C1: therefore, Christ died for everyone The controversy is in what the "whole world" means. Explanation of the Passage F

Interesting article on a Puritan who held to Universal Atonement. http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2007/12/john-goodwin-a.html

What else would all mean? Just kidding. While Arminians are aware that all can be used in a variety of ways which ends up not meaning each and every person, the basic meaning of all is the same in each of its various uses. All can be used in a hyperbolic sense. This is an exaggeration where a person says all but when pressed would clarify meaning something less than all. Another more common use for all which ends up meaning less than each and every is an implied qualifier. Someone says all, but they mean all within the context. This second sense, an implied qualifier, is the way most Calvinists explain the “all passages”. Christ died for all “sheep”. Christ died for all “races of’ men. They typically infer this into the context from 1 of 2 factors. Sometimes they look at an element of the context which says God is actually saving this or that person. From that they infer that if all means each and every person, each and every person is saved. Thus all really means all “sheep”. Other ti

For anyone who might have been following the debate I was having on triablogue here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/arminian-perspectives.html and more recently here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html The venue has moved to turretinfan's site, as he seems to be the main person responding at this point. Here's his site: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-response-to-godismyjudge.html and my most recent response: Dear TF, I am glad we can agree that divided senses shift as the topic shifts. I wonder if “ability to choose freely” could have a divided sense, but maybe it can. My concern is if it could have one, would that divided sense be of any use to you? One of the reasons I wonder this is because compatiblism and division seem at odds. That’s why I have been asking you (and Gene and Sinner Saint) for one. So I will gladly take you up on your offer to elaborate, using my necessary/sufficient distinction or anything els

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them , and bring upon themselves swift destruction. Peter is prophesying about a falling away. He speaks of false teachers who deny the Lord that bought them. My argument is simple. P1: Christ bought the false teachers P2: the false teachers ultimately perish C1: therefore Christ bought those that ultimately perish Calvinists deny P1 in two ways. First, they claim that the Lord isn ’t Christ but the Father. Second, they claim that bought isn ’t Christ’s redemption from sin, but the Fathers ownership of the world in general. The second point hinges on the first. If the redeemer is the Father, it may or may not refer to Christ’s redemption from sin. For God sent His son to redeem us from sin. But if Lord refers to Christ, it’s beyond question that the passage is talking about redemption from sin.