Dan Chapa

Kane defines choice as “the formation of an intention or purpose to do something. It resolves uncertainty and indecision in the mind about what to do” (Robert Kane, “Libertarian Perspectives on Free Agency and Free Will.” Oxford Handbook of Free Will, p.423). The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd edition) defines choose as: to select from a number of possible alternatives. Paul seems ready to grant that the dictionary definition rules out determinism, but holds that Kane’s definition is perfectly valid and does not rule out determinism. In our debate, I took the position that Kane’s definition was technical and philosophical and therefore inappropriate for understanding scriptural usage of the word “choose’. In Paul’s recent rejoinder , he support’s Kane’s definition by citing numerous libertarian “big guns” (Plantinga, Hasker, Timpe and arguably O’Conner) who agree with Kane. Paul didn’t provide another definition of ‘choose’, but he cited studies showing large percentages of

I have been writting responses to Paul's and Steve's recent posts. ( link ) ( link ) Paul's post was massive so my response was getting too long. God willing, I will break it down into chunks and post it over the next few days. God be with you, Dan

Reviewed Commentaries Ranked One to Eleven <><> <> <><> <> <><> <> <><> <> <><> <> <><> <> Commentator Review Linguistics Logic Clarity TOTAL Beet Review 4 3 4 10 Schooley Review 8 5 1 14 Goodwin Review 3 2 10 15 Whedon Review 7 4 5 16 Arminius Review 6 1 11 18 Morison Review 2 11 6 19 Godet Review 1 10 8 19 Hamilton Review 11 7 2 20 Benson Review 5 6 9 20 Moore Review 10 8 4 22 Clarke Review 9 9 7 25 These commentaries were subjectively ranked from one to eleven; one being the best, two the next best and so on. Linguistics was scored based on use of original languages and explaining things phrase by phrase. Logic was scored based on explaining the text, leaving the fewest unanswered questions and coheren

Calvinists sometimes argue that fact that some people are good and others bad is evidence that God predetermines all things. The Calvinist arguments run down two distinct tracts: 1) a forking maneuver and 2) an incoherence argument against libertarian free will. The forking maneuver looks something like this: either man or God is the difference maker – if it’s man, we have something to brag about, if it’s God, libertarian free will is undone. The incoherence argument runs something like this: the difference is due either to nature or circumstances, so something causes the difference or it’s random – in neither case does the agent have the type of control required for libertarian free will. The purpose of this post is to show that this argument is an inversion of Chrysostom’s argument supporting libertarian freedom. Calvinists maintain that election is unconditional – the elect are not chosen because of some quality they possess which others don’t possess. In this, they are not jus

In James Morison’s commentary on Romans 9, he makes the three helpful points about God’s promise that the greater shall serve the lesser. First, it was not said of Rebecca but to her, second it should be translated greater/lesser, not elder/younger, and third it’s a prediction. He also makes the point that Jacob and Esau should be considered as Nations, not individuals and that God’s hating Esau means He loved and blessed Esau less than Jacob. Morison understands the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart to mean giving Pharaoh boldness to do what he already wanted to do by removing Pharaoh’s fear of the consequences. Here’s Morison’s high level summary of the Romans 9-11: “In chapter ix. the apostle opens his subject in a profoundly pathetic spirit. He shows, with great power of demonstration, that God has the sovereign right to confer His messianic favors upon whomsoever He pleases. God has liberty in relation to men. His hands were not tied by Judaism. As regards human organs of Divine co

This post is a response to Steve Hays in our ongoing discussion of choice and determinism. All Dan is doing here, and all that Dan is ever doing here, is to fault determinism because it isn’t libertarianism. He keeps acting as if determinism is deficient since the determinist can’t view “choice” in the same way a libertarian can. ...Dan has no capacity for critical detachment. He can’t bring himself to evaluate the opposing position on its own terms. All he does is to apply a libertarian yardstick to determinism, and–voila!–determinism comes up short if you measure it by a libertarian yardstick. The first statement (that I am faulting determinism because it isn’t libertarianism) is somewhat true, but it would be better to say I fault determinism because I suspect it is libertarianism. I suspect determinists are inconsistent and retain libertarian notions. They say 'choose' meaning what everyone else does (selection between possible alternatives); but also hold to determinism,

In Joseph Benson's commentary on Romans 9 , he explains that Paul's refutation of the Jews argument that God's word failed is twofold. Paul deals with national election and also with justification by faith. Benson explains the allegorical sense and justification by faith: " In quoting these words, in Isaac shall thy seed be called, and inferring therefrom that the children of the promise shall be counted for the seed, the apostle does not intend to give the literal sense of the words, but the typical only; and by his interpretation signifies that they were spoken by God in a typical and allegorical, as well as in a literal sense, and that God there declared his counsel concerning those persons whom he purposed to own as his children, and make partakers of the blessings of righteousness and salvation. As if he had said, This is a clear type of things to come; showing us, that in all succeeding generations, not the lineal descendants of Abraham, but they to whom the prom

Steve Hays recently called Arminians (and Josh in particular) hypocrites for not opposing my teaching eternal security. ( link ) It’s unclear if he means they should oppose eternal security (since he cites case where Josh does) or if Steve means they should oppose me personally. I normal don’t respond to things like this, but since Steve is accusations others (not me, thought Steve is involving me) I thought I should say something. Steve, please consider assuming a more charitable reason other than hypocrisy for the lack of personal opposition. You’re free to enter, but not to leave. …Both getting saved and staying saved involve the exercise of faith. Believing the Gospel from day to day. Conversion doesn ’t require a different sort of faith than the daily walk of faith. Conversion doesn ’t require a different source of faith than the daily walk of faith. Faith isn ’t a choice; it’s a result of one. Repentance is a choice, but faith is not. So I disagree the inception and continu

Here's a lecture by Ken Keathley (a Molinist ) and one by Angus Stewart (a Classic Calvinist) addressed at moderate Calvinism. They cover topics such as supra vs. infra- lapsarianism , single vs. double predestination, a 'well meant offer', and defining hyper-Calvinism. Both find moderate Calvinism inconsistent and invite moderate Calvinists to consider their own positions . Both give excellent historical backgrounds for their views.

Calvinsts charge Arminians with making predestination irrelevant - something that doesn't impact life. If God already foreknew Bobby will believe in the future, predestination becomes a rubber stamp of what Bobby will do. It's already the future without predestination. Is this charge valid? Arminian views on predestination vary, but for some views (in my opinion those that most clearly and successfully avoid the charge) predestination seems to favor eternal security. The first view that clearly shows how predestination impacts the world is the foreknowledge is or includes middle knowledge. In this view God chooses what circumstances to put someone in, knowing how they would freely respond. This clearly impacts the world, and equally clearly explains how God could prevent apostasy. The second view the clearly shows how predestination impacts life is that predestination impacts the time after the foreknown event. Let's say predestination impacts Bobby's life from the mo