Dan Chapa

Robert Hamilton makes a very good case that passages such as John 10:26 'you do not believe, because you are not my sheep' refers primarily to the faithful sons of Abraham who were God’s children under the covenant as it was revealed in the Old Testament, and who were already prepared by their voluntary faith and repentance to embrace the promised Messiah. (link) Hamilton starts out by distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions for salvation in the Gospel of John. First, there are the necessary conditions of being “enabled” to come to Christ and being “drawn” to him by the Father (6:44, 65). Necessary conditions are signaled in the passages above by the grammatical structure “No one can . . . unless . . .” Second, we find in the above passages from John’s Gospel the sufficient conditions of being “given” to Jesus by the Father, having “listened to” and “learned from” the Father, “belonging” to God (i.e., being his child, cf. the contrast to the children of

William Rowe's book asks the question: Can God be Free ? First, he gives an interesting historical introduction to the subject covering the views of Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, Thomas Aquinas, and Jonathan Edwards; meanwhile he chimes in with his critique of their views from time to time. Then he discusses more recent treatments, such as Adams, Kretzmann, Howard-Snyder, Morris, Hasker, Wainwright, Langtry, Menssen, Wierenga, Flint, Swinburne, and Talbott. Rowe seems to hold that libertarian freedom is necessary for responsibility and he dismisses compatiblism as 'language gone on holiday'. Based on Leibniz's argument that God must have created the best of all possible worlds, Rowe argues a forking maneuver: either creation was necessary and God is not praiseworthy or God doesn't exist. Historic Overview Leibniz articulated two ideas that vital to the discussion. The first is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which states: there ought to be a reason why

Benson's comments on the 'giving' and 'drawing' in John 6 ( Volume 4 pages 563-565 ) are reasonably simple. First, Benson notes the passage teaches man's depravity; no man can believe in Christ to the saving of his soul, unless God give him power. The Father draws men to Christ by the several proofs wherewith he has supported his mission, by the doctrine of his gospel, and by those influences of his grace, which are necessary to give men a right discernment of the evidences of religion, and of the certainly and importance of the great truths of it, and to impress these things deeply on their minds. This drawing is powerful but not irresistible as can be seen in Jeremiah 31:3 "With loving kindness have drawn thee", John 12:32 "If l be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me", and Hosea 11:4, God "drew Israel with the cords of a man, with bands of love". Finally, God gives to Christ all that hearken to the teaching of

I was confussed something Arminius said in his response to Perkins so I looked it up in the original Latin. Turns out it was a mistranslation. In the former case [the creation of animals, plants…], the good communicated is limited, as each creature receives that which is appropriate to itself, according to the diversity of their natures, but, in the latter [the creation of men and angels], there is a communication of supreme and infinite good, which is God, in the union with whom consists the happiness of rational creatures. Reason demanded that this communication should be made contrary to justice, wherefore He gave a law to His creatures, obedience to which was made the condition on which that communication should be made. Therefore, this was the first decree concerning the final cause of rational creatures, and the glory of God to be illustrated by justice and the highest goodness — highest as to the good to be communicated, not absolutely; by goodness joined to justice, in the

Joseph Benson makes several key points in his commentaries on Acts 13:48 page 772. He argues that the Calvinist translation of tasso entails reprobation and impugns the God's character. He argues that the Calvinist view breaks down the parallel of the rejection in verse 46 with the acceptance in verse 48. He notes that tasso is never understood as predestination and is frequently dispose, place, or appoint. Benson then makes a vital point: " the Syriac, likewise, one of the most ancient versions of the New Testament, has rendered the passage in the same sense, which is of great moment, as that translation was made before the meaning of this place was disputed by the different sects and parties of Christians." Benson then he shows that a wide array of scholars translate tasso as 'disposed' rather than 'ordained' including: Doddridge, Hammond, Heylin, Waterland, Whitby, Dodd and Sellon. Benson concludes: " the sum is: All those, and only those, now

Chrysostom makes a great point. John 6:45 really helps explain John 6:37 and 44. God teaches and we learn, if we choose to, but some choose not to learn. Those that learn from the Father are the Father's. ( John 17:6 ) The Father gives those that learn to the Son. Here are the passages and Chrysostom's comments [emphasis mine]: John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and him that comes to Me I will in nowise cast out. But perhaps some one will say, If all that the Father gives, and whomsoever He shall draw, comes unto You, if none can come unto You except it be given him from above, then those to whom the Father gives not are free from any blame or charges. These are mere words and pretenses. For we require our own deliberate choice also, because whether we will be taught is a matter of choice , and also whether we will believe. And in this place, by the which the Father gives Me, He declares nothing else than that the believing on Me is no ordinary thing, nor

For whatever reason, this post get's the most hits by a rather wide margin and has consistently over time. http://www.danchapa.blogspot.com/2008/05/commands-and-invitations-for-impossible.html Perhaps it's the subject matter of the post, or perhaps it's the Star Trek analogy that triggers google searches (although people do seem to spend time on the page). Another interesting thing is that there are very few comments, but posts that generated lots of comments don't get read near as often. Hum... Not sure what to make of it.

Calvinist Greg Welty states: Clearly then, the controversy between Calvinists and non-Calvinists over unconditional election is not the Calvinists’ assertion that God elects some for salvation, since non-Calvinists believe this too. Rather, the controversy is over the Calvinists’ negative claim , namely, the denial that divine election unto salvation is on the basis of works or foreseen faith. ( link ) It's interesting to me that while Calvinists are not united on the doctrine of election; they all agree Arminianism is wrong. So as opposed to formulating the doctrine of election in a positive assertion unique to Calvinism, they simply deny the Arminian view of foreseen faith. This has it's roots in the supra vs. sub lapsarian controversy. If they all agreed that God choose from among pre-fallen man or post-fallen man they could form such a positive assertion. But since they disagree on this point, they go with the enemy of my enemy approach and target Arminianism. The problem