Dan Chapa

I will be offline for a few days. God be with you, Dan

Here’s a recap of some highlights from my debate with Turretinfan on God’s freewill. (Fair warning, I am being selective and I am summarizing things in my own words!!! The debate was massive, so I am picking the parts I thought most important. I am however providing links to all the posts of the debate.) TF : Libertarian Freewill (LFW) seems illogical. We either have no reason for our choices or our choices are determined. Me : If LFW is illogical, God doesn’t have LFW. But Genesis 1:1 teaches God has LFW, because causal forces couldn’t have preceded God’s first act. TF : Although there was no action before Creation, nevertheless God's nature and counsel, being eternal, preceded the first action. ...Thus, there is a cause and explanation for Creation: the Triune God. Me : Good! That’s agent causation and it’s half the battle. Now the other half. It rained this afternoon. Given whatever existed before the first act, was it absolutely impossible for God to create a world wh

Hodge’s first argument 1 against resistible grace is: P1: God, being infinite, cannot fail in any of His “serious intentions” P2: God ordains all things according to His purpose P3: If God wants His grace to convert us, and we resist and stay unconverted, God fails C1: so grace is irresistible Response P1 & P2 are true but equivocal. P3 is false, so the conclusion does not follow. If by fail, we mean God intends for Himself to do something and it’s not done, God cannot fail ( Daniel 4:35 ). But God intends for us to do things that we don’t do. ( Luke 13:34 , Luke 19:41-42 ) In fact, God hates sin ( Psalm 5:4 ) and sin is contrary to His will ( Mark 3:35 ). So is God failing every time someone sins? It’s really a question of what God’s intending. Hodge supposes grace to be irresistible, meaning grace is a sufficient cause of conversion. If this were so, if God means to causally necessitate conversion (such that choosing otherwise is impossible), then anything short of conver

Godismyjudge notes: The first one was good, but this one blew me away. They just don't preach like this anymore. I am not a big fan of infant baptism or baptismal regeneration, but once I got past that the sermon was great. --------------------------------------------------------- "Ye must be born again." John 3:7 1. If any doctrines within the whole compass of Christianity may be properly termed fundamental, they are doubtless these two, -- the doctrine of justification, and that of the new birth: The former relating to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter, to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also "born of the Spirit;" but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned

The key issue is not: Is man totally depraved? Arminians agree with Calvinsts that man is totally depraved and in need of grace. 1 Does God grant prevenient grace? Many Calvinists agree with Arminians that God does give prevenient grace. 2 Is God's call to the reprobate external only? Many Calvinists agree with Arminians that God's call to the reprobate isn't just external. 3 Does regeneration precede faith? Calvinists and Arminians often disagree on this issue. Calvinists say regeneration comes first and Arminians say faith comes first. But it's not key to the resistible/irresistible debate. I plan on posting on this subject later. Is regeneration monergistic or synergistic? Arminians agree with Calvinists that man doesn't regenerate himself. 4 Is faith a choice? Calvinists generally agree with Arminians that faith is a choice. 5 Are we responsible for our choices? Calvinists agree with Arminians that we are responsible for our choices. 6 Is faith a w

Mitch and I have been discussing 1 John 2:1-2. Some of the mistakes Mitch makes are common ones I see in Calvinists circles, so I thought I would address them. The Text 1Jo 2:1-2 My 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: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Mitch’s View 1. The whole world = meaning all Christians throughout who ever were, are or will be 2. “you” = the Jews 3. propitiation and advocation and are inseparable and co-extensive 4. Propitiation means “has propitiated” My View 1. The whole world = everyone 2. Christ is the propitiation for everyone, but only advocates for believers 3. Propitiation is the only basis for advocation, but they are not inseparable or co-extensive 4. Since Christ is the propitiation for everyone, He can cleanse everyone 5

God willing, I plan on blogging through the topic of Resistible vs. Irresistible Grace. To define and defend the Calvinist position, I plan on using the Systematic Theology of Charles Hodge . Many Calvinists highly recommend Hodges' Systematic Theology for good reason - Hodge's scholarship was first rate. But his treatment of irresistible grace doesn't carry the same weight as "a definitive and irrefutable work" in the same way Calvinists describe Jonathan Edwards' book on the will and John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ . But Calvinists don't have a single work they point to like they do for the atonement and the will. Still, Hodge seems appropriate on this topic. Before selecting him, I read Grudem's The Gospel Call and Effective Call , Paul Helm's The Call that Generates a Response , D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' Effectual Calling and Regeneration and Francis Turretin's Effectual Calling . Unfortunately, Turretin&

SERMON ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE PREACHED AT EPWORTH, JANUARY 11, 1726, AT THE FUNERAL OF JOHN GRIFFITH: A HOPEFUL YOUNG MAN. "Now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." 2 Sam. 12:23. The resolution of a wise and good man, just recovering the use of his reason and virtue, after the bitterness of soul he had tasted from the hourly expectation of the death of a beloved son, is comprised in these few but strong words. He had fasted and wept, and lay all night upon the earth, and refused not only comfort, but even needful sustenance, whilst the child was still alive, in hopes that God would be gracious, as well in that as in other instances, and reverse the just sentence he had pronounced. When it was put in execution, in the death of the child, he arose and changed his apparel, having first paid his devotions to his great Master, acknowledging, no doubt, the mildness of his severity, and owning, with grat

I am staring a series called “Weekly Wesley”. Basically, I am going to post a sermon or excerpt from Wesley’s notes on the scriptures or other writings or a hymn from Charles Wesley each week. I always wanted to know more about Wesley. In the past, I have read far more Arminius than Wesley. From what I know of the two men, Arminius was a great theologian, Wesley was a great preacher. I have always enjoyed Wesley’s sermons and the devotional aspects of his notes, so I figured this would be a good way for me to give myself (and anyone else who’s interested) the opportunity to learn more.

Here's my response to Turretinfan's latest post . Gabcast ! Dan's blog #10 I also wanted to extend Turretinfan the offer once again to join me in a conference call. God be with you, Dan

I wanted to respond to Turretinfan's question about Arminius here . I am still thinking about TF's lattest post in our ongoing discussion. God willing, I will respond latter this week. Gabcast! Dan's blog #9 God be with you, Dan

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan

This post is part of Turretinfan's and my ongoing debate regarding God's freewill, with responses to TF's questions here . Hopefully, TF will agree to a chat. Gabcast! Dan's blog #8 Here's the links I talk about ( link ) and ( link ). God be with you, Dan

This post is in response to Turretinfan's post here . Gabcast! Dan's blog #6 God be with you, Dan

This post is in response to Turretinfan's post here . I used gabcast only to cover ground more quickly. Sorry about the "ums" and I recommend turning the volume up. Gabcast! Dan's blog #5 God be with you, Dan

Why this post? Here’s the preceding ones: ( TF ), ( Me ), ( TF ), ( Me ), ( TF ), ( Me ), ( TF ). As you can see, TF started it. :-) Dear Turretinfan, In your last post you said: Given that we are Trinitarians, there is no reason to hold to a view that God has ever been inactive, such that there was a "first act" of God. ( link ) But previously you had said: Although there was no action before Creation, nevertheless God's nature and counsel, being eternal, preceded the first action. ( link ) Before you seemed to be denying action regressed infinitely, and affirming a first act. Now you seem to be asserting an infinite regression of actions, and denying a first act. This is an important point to clarify as your comments above shaped my question. How do you reconcile these two statements? The idea that God’s nature causes His action (an idea that I previously understood you to assert) seems inconsistent with the idea of an infinite regression of actions. Thi

I wanted to wrap up this review of Edwards by discussing the roles of philosophy and scripture. Reviewing John Owen’s book lead me to dive into scripture. This book review was philosophical in nature, as was Edwards’ book. Although I enjoyed this book review, I miss digging into scripture. For the most part, Edwards makes his arguments either without appealing to scripture or only based on a cursory review of a passage. In fairness to Edwards he goes into scripture on two topics that we didn’t get into because I agree with him: divine foreknowledge and impeccability. But other than that Edwards barely touches scripture. But since Edwards is dealing with the broad topic of the will, his book impacts the way we interpret thousands of passages of scripture. Either Calvinists or Arminians are making a categorical mistake when it comes to the will. As I said in the beginning, if CFW is incoherent, LFW is biblical, and vice versa. Philosophy is useful for defining terms, clarifying issues

Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God. Outline of Edwards' Arguments About the Necessity of the God's Will - Part IV.VII Arminians say that if God doesn’t have LFW, God is stuck in fate. The Arminian argument is based on the idea that LFW is a good thing, but acting according to nature is not disadvantageous – especially in God’s case where His nature is perfect. The sovereignty of God is in His ability and authority to do as He pleases. His power is infinite and His authority supreme. His will is not dependent on anything outside Himself, but it is determined by His infinite wisdom. God’s wisdom determines His will to what is most wise. Otherwise God is unwise, which is unworthy of God. Arminians themselves say God cannot choose contrary to the fitness of things due to His wisdom. If the fitness of things necessitating God’s actions doesn’t detract from His glory, neither does it detrac

Edwards' Arguments In part IV.V and IV.VI Edwards discusses fatalism. He states that because Calvinists affirm the connection between means and the end, they are not fatalists. Further, Edwards has not studied Stoic philosophers, let alone craft his views to mirror theirs. My Reponses I admit fatalism is not one of my favorite arguments against Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinists do ignor means and get into trouble on this (i.e. not evangelizing), but not Calvinists. Perhaps there is something to it, but many arguments I see mix assumptions (i.e. a major premise from a Calvinist standpoint and then a minor from an Arminian standpoint). There is one semi-fatalistic argument that does make some sense to me. It‘s not about means, but rather commencement. If I am seated, I have to tell myself to stand up. The means/end in this case is telling myself to stand/standing. But if I thought I had to be acted upon in order to do so, I would just wait until I was acted upon. If my brain started tel