Dan Chapa

Robert Chisholm’s article "ANATOMY OF AN ANTHROPOMORPHISM: DOES GOD DISCOVER FACTS?" explains OT texts like Genesis 18:20-21 and 22:12, which seem to indicate God does not know everything. Chisholm is not satisfied with saying they are antropromorphic and leaving it at that; he seeks a full understanding of why the passages, on the surface, indicate God is learning something. According to Chisholm “when God speaks within a metaphorical framework, His words may veil certain aspects of the divine nature, but they have a specific function to perform that contributes powerfully to His purpose) in the world of the narrative.” Chisholm continues “the literary context of each passage provides the key to understanding why God did this. In each case God's anthropomorphic self-revelation occurs within a metaphorical framework that is inherently relational in nature. God assumes a relational role and then speaks in a way that is consistent with it. Through His anthropomorphic self

Calvinists generally face the issue of God punishing people for acts that they cannot avoid, since Calvinists deny libertarian free will and maintain we cannot do otherwise than what God has decreed for us to do, but supra-lapsarianism faces two additional issues: 1) God reprobates certain men for some reason other than their sins and 2) God necessitates the fall of mankind in order to accomplish election and reprobation. Supra-lapsarians believe that in the order of decrees ( which is a logical ordering of God’s plan from eternity, rather than a temporal order of the execution of His plan in time) election and reprobation come before the fall. In this sense the fall and sin are not the reasons God reprobates. So supra-lapsarians hold that God reprobates for some reason other than sin. After God has reprobated, He needs man to sin and be in a fallen condition, so He decrees the fall to accomplishing reprobation. Infra-lapsarians avoid these two issues by saying that in the logical or

I was recently asked to back up my comments that Steve Hays disagrees with the Nicene Creed as understood and taught by the Church Fathers and the church at large. Specifically, I raised concerns about consubstantiality and eternal generation. Regarding consubstantiality, it seems Steve disagrees that the Father, Son and Spirit have a numerically one and simple divine essence. Regarding 'eternal generation', Steve seems to think it relates only to the roles each member of the Trinity plays and not to their mode of subsistence. Admittedly, I see disagreements with the Nicene Creed as somewhat of a red flag, so it's possible I am jumping to conclusions. Further, I was basing this moreso on what Steve was opposing vs. what he was affirming. So below are a list of quotes from Steve on the subject and if he would like to take this opportunity to clarify his views on consubstantiality and eternal generation and square them with the orthodox position, that would be great. Ste

Marcus was kind enough to read and respond to my post on Ephesians 1 . While his response covers a wide range of topics, D.V. I will restrict my response to the key topic: election in Christ. Marcus: Did God predestine us or did he predestine the plan of salvation? God predestined us not a plan. Does a plan get adopted like children? Does a plan get seated in heaven? This indirectly get’s at the key issue of understanding ‘in Christ’. The answer to your first question is both. God does choose us but He also chose and predestined to save through the Gospel. John 3:16, 1 Cor 1:21 especially in light of 1 Cor 2:7. So the next question is naturally, is the Gospel the foundation of our election or is our election the foundation of the Gospel. In other words, does God first say ‘I want to glorify these people’ and then say ‘to do so I will use Christ, the cross and their union to Christ through faith’ or on the other hand does he first say ‘Christ is the foundation of Gospel through th

Frank states: Because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-Biblical theological knowledge. ( link ) Arminius responds: But by the very arguments by which the Scriptures are Divine, they are also [proved to be] Canonical, from the method and end of their composition, as containing the rule of our faith, charity, hope, and of the whole of our living. For they are given for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for correction, and for consolation; that is, that they may be the rule of truth and falsehood to our understanding, of good and evil to our affections, either to do and to omit, or to have and to want. ( Deut. xxvii, 26; Psalm cxix, 105,106; Rom. x, 8, 17; Matt. xxii, 37-40; 2 Tim. iii, 16; Rom. xv, 4. ) For as they are Divine because given by God, not because they are "received from men;" so they are ca

During Arminius' day Calvinists used six distinctions to hold God decreed Adam's fall while denying God is the author of sin. Below are my paraphrases and summaries of the distinctions and Arminius’ responses. Here’s a link to the original text. ( link ) The Act and the Sin The first distinction is " in sin there are two things, the act and its sinfulness. God, by his own ordination, is the author of the act, not of the sinfulness in the act . Arminius argues that the distinction works for sins of omission (i.e. giving money to the church for public praise is a good act done for the wrong reasons) but not for sins of commission, because the acts themselves are against the law. But Adam's fall was a sin of commission, so the distinction is unhelpful. Also, since God's goal was to illustrate His glory and justice, the fall was decreed in that it was evil, not just in that it was an act, since sin (not the act) is forgiven or punished. Even if God predetermined someon

Introduction The central theme of the passage is that our blessings and salvation are in Christ Jesus. This is clear because the phrase “in Christ” (or equivalent expression) takes place a dozen times in verse 1-14. Redemption is an important aspect of salvation, but there are many other aspects of salvation. Christ is not just the basis of redemption but of salvation in its entirety, including God’s eternal plan. The Father established Christ as the head of salvation and Savior of those in Him. Christ is central from creation to glory. Those that are united to Christ, are united by grace through faith (2:8) and are considered now as they will be in glory (2:6). God’s plan from eternity to save those that are in Christ is certain and unchanging, therefore those that are in Him are already considered as they will be in eternity. Text 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace be to you, and peac

The following is a response to Steve Hays in our discussion on the Trinity and Eternal Generation. ( link ) Me: “There is a difference between what consubstantial means with how it can be. No one has any idea as to how the Trinitarian persons can be consubstantial, but that doesn't mean we don't know if consubstantial means numeric or generic identity.” Thee: And how do you know that? On the basis of exegetical theology? Historical theology? Philosophical theology? What’s your frame of reference? Exegetical, from the passages which teach God is one. Deuteronomy 6:4-6; John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Mark 12:32-34; James 2:19; Galatians 3:20; Deuteronomy 32:39; 2 Kings 19:15; Nehemiah 9:6; Isaiah 37:20; Zechariah 14:9; John 5:44; Romans 3:30; 1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 2:5; Jude 1:25 . It is in this sense that we understand John 10:30 . Historically, the church explained the scriptures this way and used philosophy to reconcile this idea with other scriptural truths. I am not sure

Recently saw this top ten list put together on the Cowboys website ( link ).

Hard to remember a time Dallas was under more pressure. Having beaten the Eagles twice already this year, we are suppose to win. But the Eagles have a good defense and can score quickly. Also, last time Dallas won a playoff game, I was a freshman in college and a Calvinist. Either Dallas or the Eagles are going into the off season with a bad taste in their mouth. The way the boys have been playing I think we will win. Go Cowboys! Dan

Steve Hays' post denying eternal procession in the Nicene creed caught my eye. ( link ) Here's our recent exchange ( link ). 1. I don’t regard Wikipedia as the gold standard of theological discourse. Nor do I, but it is popular and common. 2. ”Consubstantial” simply means “of one and the same substance or essence” (OED). Yes, but in the context of the Arian dispute, it carries an additional connotation, since neither side considered multiple divine essences. 3. At a minimum, the purpose of the homoousios clause was to exclude the notion that the Son is merely of “like essence” with the Father, rather than identical essence. True, that's the core. 4. From what I’ve read, there’s a scholarly dispute over the more specialized question of whether homoousios was also meant to denote generic identity or numeric identity. You appealed to Calvin. Here's what he had to say on the subject: While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons

The purpose of this paper is to delineate Arminius’ view on regeneration. The Arminian view on regeneration is frequently been mischaracterized, both by Calvinistic opponents, as well as adherents to his views. His view is often mischaracterized as semi-Pelagian (the view that man initiates salvation, but God completes) and sometimes go as far as to say Arminius denied original sin. Since to goal of this paper is to outline Arminius’ view, and not to defend the doctrines themselves, there will be a large number of quotations from Arminius and only a limited amount of scriptural exegesis. We will begin with a brief explanation of Arminius view of pre-fallen Adam, showing that his view was that Adam required grace to avoid sin. Next, we will show Arminius’ view of the disabling effects of the fall. Then we will cover the restorative nature of regeneration. Then we will cover the most controversial part, the order of salvation, in which we will outline Arminius’ view of the three states