Dan Chapa

I recently listened to James White's explanation of Romans 9. I was surprised by his technique. He did very little explaining of the scripture, or showing the connection between the text and Calvinism. Rather, he went verse-by-verse attacking non-Calvinist interpretations of the passage. White made very few positive assertions about what the text means; and none of them supported Calvinism. It was as if he assumed the passage teaches Calvinism and made no efforts to justify that claim. That's not exegesis and in debate it's a shift of the burden of proof. So my biggest problem is with what he didn't do - justify Calvinism based on the text. However, I also had a problem with what he did do - attack the non-Calvinist position . Sometimes White confused with non-Calvinist interpretations of the passage and non-Calvinists reconciliation of the interpretation of the passage with the rest of their theology. He asks why the reconciliation isn't in the text itself, then

In Daniel Whedon's Comentary on Romans 9 , he argues that Paul's quotations of the old testament support the Arminian view of the passage. In some ways, I found Whedon to be a prototype of more recent Arminian explanations of the passage. Specifically, his digging into the context of "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" in Exodus 32-33 was a big step in the right direction. Whedon explains the verses and then refutes Barnes' (a Calvinist) view. He notes the Calvinist interpretation of defending God's justice is really a "might makes right" kind of view. He objects: "Power increased infinitely cannot change right. A creature can be supposedly wronged by even an infinite being. The predesinarian interpretation makes Paul pretend to give a reason, but really resorts to force, and seeks to frighten his opponents out of reasoning."

John 10:26-30 speaks of God's protection. Shank notes that 'following' in verse 27 is present active indicative - which could mean an ongoing action. His point seems to be that you have to follow in order to be protected and further sometimes sheep don't follow so they are unprotected and end up lost. (Shank. Life in the Son. p. 56-60)I derive a different conclusion - Christ's sheep do follow. Let's look at the passage. In John 10:1-6 Christ says that sheep won't follow a stranger, but they follow the shepherd. In John 10:7-8 Christ says others came before, but they were thieves and robbers and the sheep didn't hear them; basically indicating the true Israel was not led astray by false prophets. In John 10:9-18 Christ explains that He is the door through which any man can enter and the good shepherd that lays His life down for the sheep. In John 10:19-21 the crowd reacts - some oppose Jesus but others say "can a demon open the eyes of the blin

Here's a recap of a debate I had with Theojunkie and Turretinfan on Calvinism and determinism. The debate cover all kinds of topics, like determinism and Molinism but one aspect that we kept coming back to was Christ's death and determinism. Here's some key quotes and links to the posts: Opening Argument: Calvinism is Determinism - A brief review of TULIP in light of Determinism Christ's death was sufficient for all meaning if He had died for the reprobate, He could have been able to save them. The "possibility" of salvation is based on a different past then the actual past - a hallmark of determinism. Theojunkie Response 1 If Christ had died for the reprobate, then 1) they would with certainty be saved, and 2) they would not be reprobate. Salvation is not "possible" for anybody-- it is certain. No where does the bible speak of the "possibility of being saved". No where does anyone in the bible present the Gospel as a "possibilit

In Joseph Agar Beet's commentary on Romans 9 ( pages 255 -288 in his A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans ) he explains that Paul is teaching that God's plan was to save through the Gospel not the Law. Beet is a good author - he asks good questions and gets right to the point. I love the way he explains why the word 'faith' doesn't appear in the first part of the text. " Paul puts, not faith, but Him that calls, in contrast to works. For God's purpose is no more a result of faith than of works ." The objection in verse 14 is that "we are working so hard and God is letting in believers who hadn't been previously working". Paul responds by explaining God is being merciful, so merit doesn't come into play. Beet sees hardening as a punishment for prior sins that makes obedience more difficult, but not impossible. Beet sees the multiple hardenings in the Exodus account of Pharaoh as making obedience more and mor

God is both willing ( John 6:39 ) and able to preserve us ( Jude 24 ). To this Robert Shank responds "Our keeping ourselves in His love, in full anticipation of the mercy of our Saviour unto eternal life, is prerequisite to his safekeeping of our souls. We can trust Christ to save us, and we can trust Him to keep us; but we must trust Him." (Shank. Life in the Son. p. 279) But as Pink said: "I’m a hazard to myself, Don’t let me get me, I’m my own worst enemy". If God's not protecting us from ourselves, He's not protecting us. God saves us from the inside out. Shank is really right about one thing and really wrong about another. We do need to trust Christ, but that's not an a prerequisite for His protection - faith is the instrument of His protection ( 1 Peter 1:5 ). Peter understood Christ's protection through experiencing trials; trials he failed but his faith failed not due to Christ's intercession ( Luke 22:31-32 ). Shank sees Peter as a speci

In Frederic Louis Godet takes a “National Election” approach in his commentary on Romans 9 . He summarizes the flow of Romans 9-11 as follows: “1. That of God's absolute liberty in regard to every alleged required right, upon Him, on man's part; this is the subject of chap. ix. 2. That of the legitimacy of the use which God has made of His liberty in the case in question; such is the subject of chap, x., where Paul shows that Israel by their want of understanding drew upon themselves the lot which has overtaken them. 3. That of the utility of this so unexpected measure: this forms the subject of chap, xi., where the beneficent consequences of Israel's rejection down to their glory one final result are unfolded.” Godet explains the chapter verse by verse and along the way he picks apart the grammatical details to draw out Paul’s point. The OT examples of Isaac, Jacob, and Moses are not talking about eternal salvation, but rather God’s merciful (but not arbitrary) choice t

John 3:16 is perhaps the best know verse in scripture because it's one of the simplest expressions of the gospel; it's only rival for popularity that I can think of is Genesis 1:1. It states: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. This seems like a plain statement of Eternal Security, and yet so many that know and love this passage don't hold to ES. What I Eternal Security? Eternal Security is the union of two views: 1) the assurance of salvation and 2) once saved, always saved (OSAS). Assurance is knowing for sure that you are saved. Many folks that hold to falling from grace do think we can have assurance (i.e. I know I am saved today, but I might not be tomorrow). So assurance is not as controversial an element as OSAS. OSAS is the view that if your saved now, you always will be. Those that hold to OSAS must be subdivided into two groups: 1) those that hold perseverance is n

The questions “can salvation be lost?” and “is salvation ever lost?” seem about the same, but one is about the possibility, the other is about the actual occurrence of apostasy. Arminius noted the distinction: a distinction ought to be made between power and action. For it is one thing to declare, that "it is possible for the faithful to fall away from faith and salvation," and it is another to say, that "they do actually fall away." This distinction is of such extensive observance, that even antiquity itself was not afraid of affirming, concerning the elect and those who were to be saved, "that it was possible for them not to be saved;" and that "the mutability by which it was possible for them not to be willing to obey God, was not taken away from them," although it was the opinion of the ancients, "that such persons never would in reality be damned." ( The Apology or Defense of James Arminius – Articles 1 &2 ) At first glance, t

Steve Hays recently pointed out that I believe in Eternal Security and most other people that call themselves Arminians 1 don’t. ( link ) In fact, for many that call themselves Arminians, this question is near and dear to their heart. This isn't a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" issue; questions about security are intensely practical and personal. Looking into “warning passages” may have been what lead them to Arminianism in the first place. They might even view ES as a dangerous doctrine or a license to sin. I can relate, but my journey lead me to a different view of security. Of the two forces binding us to God, love and fear, I find love the strongest. I didn't come by this lightly. I grew up Baptist and was taught ES as a child, but in high school I was so jolted to read the Hebrews warning passages that I questioned a great deal of what I had been taught. Through careful examination and study, I came back to believing Eternal Security is

John Goodwin's 531 page commentary on Romans 9 is the longest and most detailed account of Romans 9 I have read. I loved it. I will try to give a brief overview and highlight what I found to be some of his most insightful points. The structure of his work is as follows: a brief overview of the chapter to show how his view flows with the contours of the text, a detailed exposition of the text, a table of scriptures mentioned with some commentary on them, some general comments on interpretation, and some questions on answers on the broader implications of the text. The work also includes the "Banner of Justification", which explains justification in detail and it includes "Agreement and Distance of Brethren" which highlights the differences between Calvinists and Arminians. Overview In his introduction, Goodwin explains two problems with the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9. First, they miss Paul's point about justification by faith. They argue that if