Dan Chapa

RGMPilgrim’s recent comments challenged me to think about the purpose of this blog. Here’s the comment: I think that Calvinism is as diabolical as it was for Calvin to have a man killed in the name of religious convictions.The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men was not Calvin's motto I do not think. On the other hand Jude made clear that there is something which we must "earnestly contend" for. It is the faith that JESUS Christ presented to us, and that faith did NOT include an option at thinking that God has not revealed whom he would elect, does it? Jesus is the revelation of the Father and Jesus was a first class gentleman, until he met up with the temple priest/businessmen.Further does not that faith for which we "agonizo" preclude that those who call God's wisdom arbitriness and God's justice, non-justice are to be viewed as "un-godly" and as servants of the Enemy?Perhaps you should beware being too "harmle

Dr. White graciously took the time to respond to one of my posts where I commented on his critique of middle knowledge. ( link ) The discussion is in the first part of the broadcast. I had argued that Dr. White's positions that Molinism undermines both LFW and God's sovereignty were inconsistent. Dr. White responds that I misrepresented his arguments and it's possible for a system to have more than one problem. It's true that I didn't quote Dr. White's comments in their entirety, but I did link to them. But what I did say I believe to be both relevant and accurate. As for systems being able to have more than one problem; I agree. But only if you draw out contradictory premises from inside a system, can you validly assert a contradiction. If one or both of the premises are unacceptable to your opponent and outside their system; they have every right to point out that your assertions are inconsistent. Thus Mark notes about Christ's trial: many bare

James White discussed Molinism on a recent dividing line. ( link ) His two primary criticisms of middle knowledge (God's know what you would do under any circumstances) were 1) it doesn't accomplish God's goal of giving man freewill, which makes man robots and doesn't escape unconditional election and 2) middle knowledge removes God's sovereignty and places too much in the hands of man's autonomous freewill, thereby limiting what God can do with His creation and robbing God of His glory. Awkwardly for Dr. White, sometimes he would raise both objections in the same train of thought - seemingly unaware of how at odds these to claims are to each other. Both cannot be problems at the same time. Nor were his objections based on two distinct aspects of Molinism; they were both based directly on the idea that God knows what you would do under any circumstances. It's odd that those objecting to Molinism's consistency use such inconsistent approaches such a

Jerry McCant's Interpretation of Romans 5-8 is in response to a request to provide a Wesleyan view of Romans 6-8. He expands the scope to cover chapter 5, since he finds a close connection between 5 and 6. While I personally didn't like McCant's not finding original sin in Romans 5 or his saying Paul's analogies in Romans 6 & 7 have problems, McCant does make some interesting points. Overall, McCant does not find a Wesleyan 'second work of grace' in the passage.

My recent post about Arminius' impact on Calvinism drew criticisms from Turretinfan and Steve Hays. ( link ) TF suggests one could read my article and come to the conclusion that Arminius was a infralapsarian. I am not sure how that could be, given I said Dort condemned Arminianism. Steve wonders if I think Arminius originated some ideas that impacted Calvinism, but I had said "Arminius didn't teach anything new". Origination of the ideas isn't the only way to impact an outcome. Piscator fought tooth and nail to keep the 'well meant' offer out of the confession, at one point saying he would count the rest of the synodists as Remonstrants if he didn't get his way on the issue, but in the end he as overruled. (Womock. Calvinist Cabinet Unlocked. 94) It's important that the issue turned out this way rather than that, and Arminius got attention on the issue by point out the drawbacks of denying a well meant offer. TF said " When the Westmin

Arminius didn't teach anything new, but his shoulders were strong enough to carry the cause of the many non-Calvinist Protestants of his day. While his influence on non-Calvinists was the strongest, I did want to point out on this the 400th anniversary of his death, his influence on Calvinism. As those familiar with Arminius know, his primary issue with Calvinism was supra-lapsarianism - the idea that the decree of unconditional election logically precedes the decree of the fall. In supra-lapsarianism, God uses the fall as a means of coming up with the end. It's like planning a trip. First you set the destination, then you plan the route. In supra-lapsarianism, God first decides who to glorify and who to destroy, then He plans for man to fall so they will need salvation and punishment in Hell. Arminius' writings against the supra-lapsarians Perkins and Gomorus focused on that issue, as did his commentary on Romans 9 and his declaration of sentiments. Sub-lapsarianism

In Jack Cottrell's article, Sovereignty and Free Will, he discusses the question: is there a logical incompatibility between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man? He points out that every detail may be included in God's decree without everything's being determined or effectuated by God. God decided to give man freedom; God has sovereignly and absolutely determined man's freedom, but not man's free acts. This is the way he planned it, decreed it, created it. God is in control, in that he is the creator and sustainer of all and that God controls the external circumstances of a man through his divine providence and he works within the heart through the Holy Spirit, but not to the point that man is left without choice. God works even to the point of opening or hardening the heart, yet without turning the will itself to one side or the other and always within the frame work of His foreknowledge.

In Dunn's article, A Discourse on the Freedom of the Will he dispatches Jonathan Edwards two main arguments in a quick and decisive manor. He responses to Edwards' cause of a volition dilemma (infinite regression of causes or causeless cause) by pointing out that Edwards begs the question regarding the definition and nature of causes and that his argument undermines God's freedom. Following Edwards' principles, Dunn argues: therefore there never was a divine volition without a pre-existing motive. Hence there was a time when there was no force in the universe, but the force of motive; and when there either was no God, or else no active God. If we take one horn of the dilemma, and say there was a God, but a God without volition, and consequently without activity or character, we have the Pantheist's God. If we take the other, and affirm that previous to volition there was no intelligent God, we have the God of the Atheist. In either case, the universe presents but