Dan Chapa

This is part of an ongoing discussion on determinism... ( Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul ) Even if I granted that 21st century common man understands choice in a libertarian way… that doesn't imply that X-century BC Jews thought that way. Paul is welcome to address the reasons I have already provided, based on the common consent of modern scholarship and extra-biblical Jewish writings. Dan must grant the possibility that in an increasingly secular society, given the state of public education, and given the direction science is heading; the "common man" will believe this: "All things are physically determined with generalizations and conditionals having 100% probabilities associated with them." I am not sure the common man is in a position to evaluate that claim. as I argued from Kane, the common man also has problems with indeterminate happenings. He only said they would, if they held certain mistaken notions. Dan writes that the problem wit

John Wesley had the rare gift of bringing the Calvinist/Arminian debate from the head to the heart. In Predestination Calmly Considered, Wesley first examines the idea of upholding unconditional election while rejecting reprobation and then explains why the two doctrines are inseparable. He then rejects reprobation as inconsistent with the whole scope and tenor both of the Old and New Testament and provides about four pages of scriptural quotations to demonstrate his point. He then shows that reprobation is inconsistent with God’s justice and explains Romans 9. Wesley then moves to the atonement and shows Christ died for all based on a few passages and based on the general offer of the gospel. He then explains that man is dependent on prevenient grace and that even though man has freewill, God gets all the glory. He then explains why a system that includes freewill glorifies God more than a system with reprobation, based on God’s wisdom, justice and love. Wesley then explains co

This is part of an ongoing discussion on determinism... ( Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul ) Paul: Dan acts as if I said the common man think the term choice doesn't present genuine access to alternative possibilities. Thus he is arguing against a point I never made. I did bypass this because despite Paul’s point here, he provided several counters to my argument that the dictionary rules out determinism. But if Paul admits the common man thinks of choice as libertarian, he should address the fact that the bible was written by common men and to the common man (i.e. to the people of Israel and the church, not the semi-compatiblist) and it uses the terms choice and choose. The problem with Paul’s Princeton dictionary entry is that it references alternatives. Dictionary.com defines alternative as: 1. a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility: You have the alternat

This is part of an ongoing discussion on determinism... ( Paul , me , Paul ) Regarding defining choice, it seems defining the noun choice is highly dependent on the verb choose. But Paul’s sources define choose roughly the way mine did. So the dictionary definitions and common sense understanding of the terms do seem to rule out determinism. My objections to Kane are as I stated. While Kane in some ways represents the common understanding of choice, in some ways he does not. Paul’s case seems based on the ways in which he does not represent the common man. As for LFW appearing to imply counter-intuitive aspects, the counter-intuitive aspects seem to be based on avoidable mistakes. As for Paul’s assertion that the alternative is possible even if choosing the alternative is not, if determinism is true, given the causal forces at play, neither choosing the alternative nor the alternative are possible. As for the Hebrews not having American dictionaries, the problem is that all the com

The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd edition) defines choose as: to select from a number of possible alternatives . (similar definitions available here and here ) Determinism includes the idea that preceding causal forces render all our actions necessary such that they cannot be otherwise. So a “predetermined choice” implies an “impossible possibility” and an “inalternate alternative”. Since the bible states that we have wills and choose, determinism isn’t consistent with the bible. Calvinist Paul Manata expresses his concern that reasoning in this way is “stacking the deck” and acting as a “duplicitous atheist or cult member”. In answering the objections that: we frequently hear that "choice" just means some kind of libertarianism about the will. The second is like unto it: "You Calvinists must necessarily go against laymen, common sensical understandings of certain terms. Your position is counter-intuitive. Ordinary folk laugh at you." ( link ) Paul cite

Scot McKnight’s article "The warning passages of Hebrews: A formal analysis and Theological Conclusions" reviews the warnings of apostasy in Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39 and 12:1-29 . McKnight identifies four alternative interpretations of the warning passages: hypothetical warnings, false believers, the covenant community and his view, true believers. McKnight identifies four aspects of the passages: “in each warning passage we find: 1) the subjects or audience who are either committing or in danger of committing 2) the sin that leads to 3) the exhortation which, if not followed, leads to 4) the consequences of that sin.” McKnight argues that studying the four warnings in unison helps define each of these four aspects. He sees the audience as true believers, the sin as apostasy from the faith, the exhortations as “persevere in faith and heed the word of God in obedience” and the consequence as eternal damnation. McKnight then engages Nicole’s explanatio

Here’s an enjoyable debate between GNRHead and Turretinfan on the veneration (or worship?) of saints. For reference, here are the two main passages in question. Galatians 5:13-15 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another . For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! 1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to the whole assembly, "Praise the LORD your God." So they all praised the LORD, the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king. I found Turretinfan convincing, in that if we look at “religious context” as so broad as to encompass all aspects of life, it becomes meaningless. Pushing the Galatians passage too far, seem so indicate veneration is due to all believers at all points in life. Catholics expres

John Wesley’s article “The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace” is an Arminian classic. True to form, Wesley’s humor is delightful, his theology is educational and his preaching stings the conscience and chides us to improve. Wesley explains what Arminianism is not, gives a brief history of Arminius, explains a bit about Arminian theology and then calls both his Calvinist and Arminian readers to cease and desist with the name calling.

This question is a bit of a problem for Catholic s, because their councils come along over a thousand years after the writing of scripture and require you to believe some things not explicitly taught in scripture and anesthetize dissenters. But does scripture explicitly teach what is necessary for salvation? Arminius said yes. Let’s look at his reasons why. Broadly, is argument is in three steps 1) God perfectly inspired all things we need to know for salvation to the prophets and apostles, 2) they faithfully communicated them, and 3) they wrote them down in scripture. ( link ) God perfectly inspired all things we need to know for salvation to the prophets and apostles Arminius argues that John 14:26, John 15:15, John 16:13, and John 17:8 teach Christ knew and revealed all things necessary for salvation to His Apostles and he fortifies his argument based on John 17:17-20 that this revelation was intended for the sanctification of the whole church. Based on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 ,

William Klein’s article: “Paul’s use of Kalein: A Proposal” challenges us to reconsider the traditional understandings of Paul’s use of kalein, based on linguistic evidence. Kalein typically either means summoning or naming. For Paul, when God is the agent, kalein is a technical term referring to election and salvation. Klein sees Paul’s use of the “naming” sense in Romans 9:25, but it’s more than just designation; kalein is distinctly causative and it transforms a people from the condition “not his people” to the condition “his people”. In other words, the traditional view of kalein implies a Divine call/human faith response, but here Paul seems to be talking about a unilateral “naming” by God of people who are already believers, which makes those named, God’s children. Klein then reviews Paul’s other 26 relevant uses of kalein from the angles of origin, instrumentation, circumstance and goal and notes that this “naming” sense seems to work in all cases except perhaps 2 Thessalon

Roger Olson’s article: Don't Hate Me Because I'm Arminian explains the importance of Arminians and Calvinists accepting each other and working together despite their theological differences. Olson shares several personal anecdotes while explaining why classic Arminians are evangelical and neither humanist or liberal. Olson also shares that even though he remained Arminian, learning about Calvinism provide him some balance on the issues of God’s sovereignty and man’s need for grace. He sees the cooperation of Wesley and Whitfield as a good example of how Calvinists and Arminians need each other and despite important irreconcilable differences, can work together harmoniously for the cause of Christ.