Dan Chapa

In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination ( link ), he disagrees with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism about 90% of the time, so we get very few glimpses of what he actually believes. I went through the article and pulled out all the positive statements by Bavinck about predestination. I came out with 10 statements. Upon examining the statements, I noted that the majority of them are either in tension with each other or leave a major term undefined. Statements in tension with each other (i.e. that seem to move in opposite directions - although they don’t formally contradict each other, no reconciliation is provided): (statement) On the one hand, both election and reprobation presuppose sin, and are deeds of mercy and of justice, Rom. 9:15; Eph. 1:4; (counter) on the other hand both [election and reprobation] are also deeds of divine right and sovereignty, Rom. 9:11, 17, 21. (statement) At times Scripture expresses itself so strongly that reprobatio

Daniel Whitby's Discourses on the 5 Points was, during its day, the definitive Arminian work against Calvinism. Whitby had a commanding knowledge of the scriptures, and his book is a detailed and unrelenting examination of Calvinism. It drew responses from famous Calvinists Jonathan Edwards, Inquiry into the Will and John Gill, the Cause of God and Truth . Below is an index to Whitby's discourse on Grace. Archaic spellings and words have been updated, sentences broken down into shorter sentences and links to scripture references inserted. . Introduction to Whitby on Grace . Resistible/irresistible Grace – Defining the Question Chapter 2: Arguments against Irresistible Grace Opening Remarks and Argument One - Sufficient Grace Argument 2: God Desires Obedience Argument 3: Commands and Exhortations in Vain Argument 4: Justice in Punishment Argument 5: Word of God Argument 6: No Motive for Conversion Argument 7: No Preparation for Conversion Argument 8: No one could b

Sovereignty typically means authority or right. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign in all He does, so He has the authority to do what He does. Period. The End. But wait!!! In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination ( link ), he states: In all his “outgoing works” God always has in view his own glory; but that he seeks to establish this glory in this and in no other way is to be ascribed to his sovereignty and to nothing else. Bavinck uses the term “sovereignty” as either God’s actions or the reason for His actions, not just His authority to act. He is saying “God is doing X”, but rather than explaining why God is doing X, He simply says God has the right to do X and claims God’s right to do X is the explanation. Here are some examples. Reprobation cannot be explained as an act of God's justice, for the first sinful deed at any rate was permitted by God's sovereignty. On the one hand, both election and reprobation presuppose s

James Leonard provided a nice summary of Roger Olson’s book: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Olson’s book is quickly becoming an Arminian classic. One of Leonard’ key points is “Arminians are not driven to their position because they want to cling to free will, as if it were absolutely precious and the one non-negotiable of the debate. The real issue for Arminians is the character of God. Arminians are driven to their position because they see that Calvinism leads to making God the author and the effecting power of sin, and denying God's goodness.” (link)

Corporate election is the idea that election is primarily about a group and secondarily about individuals. It’s most clearly seen in the OT concept of Israel and the NT concept of the church. Philip Limborch addressed the objection that corporate election rules out individual election: In the first place it is objected that the predestination we have defined, is not that of persons, but of faith; since faith is thereby predestined as a condition of salvation. Answer. He who elected faith as a condition to be performed by men if they would attain eternal life, has truly elected men under that condition, and in His decree has an immediate regard to people. Therefore these two things, viz., the person and his qualification, are never to be separated, but are always to be joined together. (Philip Limborch, A Complete System or Body of Divinity, both Practical and Speculative. P 344-345) Scripture paints a manifold view of election: God chooses Christ as the foundation of salvation ( 1 Pete

I recently read Herman Bavinck on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination. ( link ) Bavinck’s approach is intriguing. He argues that both the supralapsarian and infralapsarian systems have their strengths and weaknesses, so he cherry-picks the strengths and discards the weaknesses as he presents his own unsystematized views on the subject of predestination. To be clear, he is not saying that he is unable to systematize predestination, but rather that the topic cannot be systematized. This approach has its drawbacks. Without a logical order, the topic can’t really be explained, nor can Bavinck be sure his system is free from contradiction. Advocates of Bavinck's approach claim greater freedom to interpret scripture, but if your interpretation of one passage is in tension with another passage, you can never be sure your interpretation is correct. Systematic theology is a lot of hard work. You have to keep many pieces in view simultaneously to ensure you don't run int

I recently read Greg Boyd’s explanation of Christ’s foretelling Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denial. The basic issue is that in open theism, a free choice cannot be foreknown. Boyd’s states that at the time of their sins, Judas and Peter were not free (i.e. they couldn’t choose remain faithful to Christ). But since their prior free choices had formed their character, they were still responsible even if not free at that specific moment. ( Boyd on Peter , Boyd on Judas ) While I suspect this explanation is unsound for multiple reasons, let’s for the moment grant that it’s true. What about cases were the future is foretold, yet counterfactual ability is asserted? Matthew 26:52-54: But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” Christ claims

In Boettner’s introduction to the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (RDP), he claims he isn’t teaching anything new: The purpose of this book is not to set forth a new system of theological thought, but to give a re-statement to that great system which is known as the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and to show that this is beyond all doubt the teaching of the Bible and of reason. ( link ) A.A. Hodge makes a similar claim regarding Charles Hodge: On the day of his semi-centennial celebration, he turned with a beautiful simplicity to his brethren and said that "Princeton had never been charged with originating a new idea." To his mind this was a high distinction. It is mind that has made Princeton a synonym for greatness, but it was mind that feared God and never dared to originate what He had not taught. ( link ) This is basically a claim that Calvinism is taught in the bible. Calvinism becomes not just a system of reconciling scripture, but the very system itself is taught in

Calivinists have a rich heritage; one they can be proud of. It's unquestionable that Augustine, many of the Reformers and Puritans held Calvinist ideas. But after reading Boettner's introduction of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, one might get the impression that Calvinism dominates church history and substantially every major theologian accepted Calvinisic predestination. Boettner claims: The great majority of the creeds of historic Christendom have set forth the doctrines of Election, Predestination, and final Perseverance, as will readily be seen by any one who will make even a cursory study of the subject. On the other hand Arminianism existed for centuries only as a heresy on the outskirts of true religion, and in fact it was not championed by an organized Christian church until the year 1784, at which time it was incorporated into the system of doctrine of the Methodist Church in England. ( link ) Boettner equivocates predestination with Calvinistic predestinati

Introduction The Key Issue: Resistible vs. Irresistible Grace Hodge’s Arguments Does God fail if we Resist? The Difference Maker Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19 Hodge's Arguments for Irresistible Grace - Infants The Called - Hodge's Arguments for Irresistible Grace Hodge on Unconditional Election Regeneration The Equivocation of Regeneration Which Comes First, Faith or Regeneration? Current Reactions John 1:12-13 (Response to Theojunkie)

Introduction Definitions Critique of Edwards’ View of the Will What is Libertarian Free Will? Edwards Arguments against Freewill Causeless Cause or Infinite Regression of Causes Divine foreknowledge Arguments against the Link between Freewill and Responsibility Impeccability and Hardening Commands and Invitations for the Impossible Desire isn't good enough Habits Evaluation of Grounds for Freewill Responsibility Action Common and Philosophical Necessity Fatalism Necessity of the Divine Will Wrap Up of Edwards Book Review Modern Reactions Free to Choose what we Desire Most? Debate with Turretinfan on God’s freewill

During the last two Democratic Presidencies (Carter and Clinton) laws were passed to make ways for people who couldn’t afford housing to purchase houses. Back in the day, people needed to come up with large down payments to be able to afford houses. The sub/prime loan market was created through the instrumentation of quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, enabling people who previously couldn’t afford houses to purchase houses. The market was artificial and would have died of natural causes, but its life was extended by creative loan instruments such as interest only loans, negative amortization loans and self-certification of income loans. The market finally corrected itself this year. The Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans fell asleep at the switch and should have prevented the economy from falling apart under their watch. But such ideas assume the point in question: that the government, not the free markets, should drive the economy. If