Dan Chapa

Recently, I had an exchange with kind folks over at Triablogue regarding foreknowledge, here . They had been challenging JC to explain how God's knowledge of the future is compatible with libertarian freewill (LFW). As part of the discussion, I said I think God knows the future because He can see it. I also asked: Do you think God can see the future? Paul & Steve responded: Paul's response: So, we don't take "foreknow" as in "peers into the future."On the Calvinist scheme, God knows anything about his creation whatever, because he decreed it. He consults his decree, his plan. So, God's decree causes his knowledge rather than the creature causing God's knowledge. Steve responded by comically relating my comment about God seeing the future to a Palantir as well as by saying: Not literally. Divine "foresight" is just a picturesque and figurative synonym for divine foreknowledge or (more precisely) God's knowledge of the future. Her

This post is a continuation of my discussion with Turretinfan. Tfan had asked: How is purchasing a redemption for both believers and non-believers consistent with decreeing to save only believers? ( here ) To which I had responded: 1) the decree to save believers should not be understood as foreknowledge of individual believers (i.e. Sue and John, but not Robbie), but rather the formula that anyone who believes shall be saved 2) that decree was preceded by a decree that Christ, by His death, shall be the basis of salvation (this decree can't be limited to the elect, because is explanatorily prior to the decree of election) 3) the decree regarding Christ's death means salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death (here ) Turretinfan replied here . I will quote his most relevant portions in italics and provide my responses. since the first decree [that Christ should die, making men savable] does not include any decree for application of the benefit of Chris

For anyone interested, I have been chatting with Dr. James Galyon about J. I. Packers' introduction to Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ over on his fine blog here . BTW, among James' many qualities, he's a Cowboys fan. :-)

Turretinfan recently made this comment and asked a question, here . Today, in fact only a few minutes ago, I found this interesting discussion, from which - for the moment - I've excerpted only the name: When [this man] was charged with teaching, Christ has died for all men and for every individual, he responded, "This assertion was never made by me either in public or private except when it was accompanied by such an explanation as the controversies which are excited on this subject have rendered necessary. "For the phrase here used possesses much ambiguity: Thus it may mean either that 'the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one,' or that 'the redemption, which was obtained by means of that price, is applied and communicated to all men and to every one' . . . Of this latter sentiment I entirely disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved that believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption . . .&q

If Dr. Keith Stanglin's book, Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation, isn't the best book out there on Arminius, it’s certainly in the top five. Stanglin description of Arminius' views has a historic flare, similar to books like God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of James Arminius by Richard Muller or Arminius, A Study in the Dutch Reformation by Carl Bangs. Stanglin's book has several unique features. First, it uses some of the 35 untranslated, unpublished Public Disputations by Arminius. Second, it examines Arminius' fellow professors at Leiden and the teaching styles and methods common at the university. Third, Stanglin retranslates Arminius from Latin, making some important corrections to Nichols' translation. This focus on primary materials, original language and context sets the stage for clearly understanding what Arminius had to say about assurance. The book starts out by outlining Arminius' view of salvation and contrasting Arminius&#

Whelp, that wraps up the series on John Owen’s book, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Wow, 46 posts! That’s quite a journey. This has been much more in-depth than I anticipated. But it has also been more rewarding than I thought as well. I chose Owen, because Calvinists often cite Owen’s book as the best out there on Limited Atonement. Also, older Calvinist theologians tend to be heavyweights at Polemics, which is what interests me. I wanted to highlight some of the problems with Owen’s arguments and present an alternative to his view that I think is more faithful to scripture. If anyone thinks I made mistakes in analyzing Owen’s arguments, or thinks they can provide stronger arguments than Owen, I welcome comments. I will be offline for about a week or so. After that, God willing, I plan on starting reviewing another classic Calvinist work: Jonathan Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will. If anyone wonders why I am blogging through Calvinist books, here are two quotes that

Here’s J. I. Packer’s misrepresentation of Arminianism . First, it should be observed that the “five points of Calvinism,” so-called, are simply the Calvinistic answer to a five-point manifesto (the Remonstrance) put out by certain “ Belgic semi- Pelagians ” in the early seventeenth century. The theology which it contained (known to history as Arminianism ) stemmed from two philosophical principles: first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi- Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal. Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be in

This post is part of a series started here , to counter Owen’s charge that Arminians are Pelagians and Packer’s that Arminians are semi-Pelagians. All quotations from the Canons of Orange taken from here . I didn’t provide comments, because I thought Arminius’ agreement with the Canons was straightforward. I you disagree, please comment. The Canon’s will be in red , quotations from Arminius’ will be in blue . CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" ( Gal. 2:21 ), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore

This post is part of a series started here , to counter Owen’s charge that Arminians are Pelagians and Packer’s that Arminians are semi-Pelagians. All quotations from the Canons of Orange taken from here . I didn’t provide comments, because I thought Arminius’ agreement with the Canons was straightforward. I you disagree, please comment. The Canon’s will be in red , quotations from Arminius’ will be in blue . CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" ( Gal. 2:21 ); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" ( Eph.4:8 , quoting Ps.68:18 ). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it,

This post is part of a series started here , to counter Owen’s charge that Arminians are Pelagians and Packer’s that Arminians are semi-Pelagians. All quotations from the Canons of Orange taken from here . I didn’t provide comments, because I thought Arminius’ agreement with the Canons was straightforward. I you disagree, please comment. The Canon’s will be in red , quotations from Arminius' will be in blue . CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" ( 1 Chron. 29:14 ). ...let us by prayer and supplication implore his present aid, in the name of Jesus Christ our great High Priest. "Do thou, therefore, O holy and merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Fountain of all grace and truth, vouchsafe to grant thy favourable presence to us who are a great congregation assembled together in thy holy name. Spri

This post is part of a series started here , to counter Owen’s charge that Arminians are Pelagians and Packer’s that Arminians are semi-Pelagians. All quotations from the Canons of Orange taken from here . I didn’t provide comments, because I thought Arminius’ agreement with the Canons was straightforward. I you disagree, please comment. The Canon’s will be in red , quotations from Arminius' will be in blue . CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that y

This post is part of a series started here , to counter Owen’s charge that Arminians are Pelagians and Packer’s that Arminians are semi-Pelagians. All quotations from the Canons of Orange taken from here . I didn’t provide comments, because I thought Arminius’ agreement with the Canons was straightforward. I you disagree, please comment. The Canon’s will be in red , quotations from Arminius' will be in blue . CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" ( Ezek. 18:20 ); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" ( Rom. 6:16 ); and, "F

By and large, I have completed my review of Owen’s position on the atonement. Owen does however make an additional argument against Arminianism. Owen relates Arminians with Pelagians . Additionally, J. I. Packer calls Arminians Semi-Pelagian in his introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Calling Arminians Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian is somewhat of a reformed tradition. The Synod of Dort repeatedly did so , clearing the path for generations to come. The charge that Arminians are either Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians is false. I intend to demonstrate this though 1) comparing the Canons of Orange to Arminius and 2) critiquing Packer’s argument. The primary difference between Arminians and both Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians is the issue of the necessity of grace. Pelagians deny grace is necessary for conversion. Semi-Pelagians deny grace is necessary for man to begin conversion (although, contrary to Pelagians, they think God’s must meet man half way). Arminians insist that God

Goodwin, a rare Arminian Puritan, admirably defends unlimited atonement. Goodwin primarily argues from scripture, but he also provides some arguments from reason and church history. Goodwin’s primary scriptural arguments are based on passages saying Christ died for the world, passages saying Christ died for all, the universal offer the gospel, passages saying Christ died for those that ultimately perish, and passages saying God wants none to perish. Goodwin then clearly explains what “unlimited atonement” does and does not mean. Goodwin finishes up with giving solid reasons why Christ died for all and reviewing the historical position of the Church on the issue. Goodwin provides a unique level of depth on the issues. For example, he goes over the word “world” in great detail, and then reduces multiple Calvinist interpretations of passages like John 3:16 to absurdities. Goodwin covers multiple Calvinist counterarguments to all of his arguments. Through detailed explanations of h