Dan Chapa

Theojunkie responded to my post: which comes first, faith or regeneration ? His response focused on John 1:12-13 , which states: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. TJ’s explanation seems to be: A. giving “the right to become children of God” doesn’t refer to regeneration, but rather either adoption or sanctification. B. The fact that we are born of God’s will, not man’s, means regeneration precedes faith, because faith involves man’s will. C. “Receiving Christ” is the start of “believing”, so there is no room in-between receiving Christ and believing for regeneration to take place. Even though adoption and birth are two alternative means of becoming sons and both birth and adoption are used to describe the blessings given us, we have good reason to suspect “A” is unsound. In this context “adoption”

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi

2 Sam 7:14 So Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The advice of Hushai the Archite is better than the advice of Ahithophel.” For the LORD had purposed to defeat the good advice of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring disaster on Absalom. Absalom and all, &c. - Be it observed, to the comfort of all that fear God, he turns all mans hearts as the rivers of water. He stands in the congregation of the mighty, has an over - ruling hand in all counsels, and a negative voice in all resolves, and laughs at mens projects against his children. ( link ) Here's a youtube clip of a Calvinist who was rather perplexed by Wesley's comments: Wesley for the most part was using the language of scripture and affirming the providence of God. Not that shocking if you understand Arminianism. My only advice is that it's good to understand something before you reject it.

Although, I just argued that “what” regeneration is, in more important than “when” regeneration is, we do still need to touch on the question of the timing of regeneration. These passages show that regeneration comes after faith. ( Ephesians 1:13, John 1:12-13, Romans 5:18, John 5:24-28, Romans 6:2-6, Galatians 3:2, 2 Corinthians 3:18 ) By grace we are: sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, given the right to become children of God, not condemnation but given justification of life, given everlasting life, and we shall not come into judgment, but have passed from death into life, our old man was crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin, recipients of the Spirit, and transformed into the Lord’s image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. All these blessings are given to us only: after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, to as many as receive Ch

Theojunkie, a friendly levelheaded Calvinist, recently made an interesting comment about original sin: I doubt that you TRULY deny the federal headship of Adam (though your last sentence strongly suggests that you do). I think however that you misspoke, because just recently you stated that Arminians (yourself included) affirm the full reality (that is, the Reformed view) of Total Depravity in post-fall man. You stated that the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology does not lie in the doctrine of TD. Note that it is because of the federal headship of Adam that all men are naturally born into this condition of total depravity. ( context ) Some people explain original sin in that we would have done the same thing as Adam. I am not dogmatic about this, but I am inclined to disagree. Adam’s sin is foreign to us, but imputed to us. What we would have done (under compatiblist assumptions) seems to me to be an indictment of our character, not an imputation of somet

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24. 1. In the preceding verses we have an account of a young man who came running to our Lord, and kneeling down, not in hypocrisy, but in deep earnestness of soul, and said unto him, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" "All the commandments," saith he, "I have kept from my youth: What lack I yet?" Probably he had kept them in the literal sense; yet he still loved the world. And He who knew what was in man knew that, in this particular case, (for this is by no means a general rule,) he could not be healed of that desperate disease, but by a desperate remedy. Therefore he answered, "Go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poor; and come and follow me. But when he heard this, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. So all the fair blossoms withered away! For

William Burt Pope wrote an excellent three volume systematic theology from an Arminian perspective. The first two volumes are available on Google books and I recommend them. I really like his view of grace. So few Arminian systematic theologies are available online that it really is amazing this is out there for free. Here's the links: Volume 1 Volume 2 Here’s a little about him from Wikipedia . William Burt Pope (1822 – 1903) was an English Christian theologian in the Methodist tradition.Ordained in 1842, Pope became a successful linguist and translator of German anti-rationalist critics. He taught at Didsbury Wesleyan College in Manchester, England from 1867 to 1886. His greatest work, Compendium of Christian Theology (1875-1876), set forth influential arguments for the "holiness doctrine of all Methodist systematic theology" and defended Methodist doctrine against its critics. God be with you, Dan

Hodges' Argument Hodge argues that unless grace is resistible, the ultimate reason some believe and not others is found in us and not in God. Hodge says this would make believers better, more impressible or less obstinate than other. 1 Problem Non-Unique Personally, I find this one of the most powerful Calvinistic arguments. The idea that I can take credit for my salvation is intolerable, as is the idea that I am better than someone else. But the Calvinist solution is no solution, and it creates more problems than it resolves. Let’s take the argument that believers can take credit for their faith. But Calvinists also say people believe. Therefore Calvinism entails that people can take credit for their faith. It does not good for Calvinists to object that in Calvinism, grace is the sufficient cause of faith and in Arminianism, it is not. That doesn’t impact responsibility. In Calvinism, people are responsible for their actions, even though they are predetermined by sufficient caus

Classic Charles Wesley Hymn "And Can it be" 1.And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Savior's blood! Died he for me? who caused his pain! For me? who him to death pursued? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me? 2.'Tis mystery all: th' Immortal dies! Who can explore his strange design? In vain the firstborn seraph tries to sound the depths of love divine. 'Tis mercy all! Let earth adore; let angel minds inquire no more. 'Tis mercy all! Let earth adore; let angel minds inquire no more. 3.He left his Father's throne above (so free, so infinite his grace!), emptied himself of all but love, and bled for Adam's helpless race.'Tis mercy all, immense and free, for O my God, it found out me! 'Tis mercy all, immense and free, for O my God, it found out me! 4.Long my imprisoned sprit lay, fast bound in sin and nature's night; thine eye dif