Dan Chapa

Douglas Kennard’s article Petrine Redemption: its Meaning and Extent gives an overview of Peter’s concept of redemption and then dives into 2 Peter 2:1’s statement ‘denying the Lord that bought them’. For Peter, Christ’s death is substitutionary in nature and is like a sacrificial lamb. Kennard argues that for Peter, redemption is not a payment to someone (either God or the devil). Rather it’s simply accomplished. Redemption is a onetime action not a continuing enablement. Redemption is out of a corrupt, sinful life and requires the redeemed to live differently. Redemption for Peter is not equivalent to salvation for Paul. One can be redeemed but not ultimately saved. Regarding 2 Peter 2:1, Kennard defends the view of the apostatizing of unsaved knowers of the truth. Kennard understands Christ to be the ‘Lord’ (despotes) and the redemption (agorazo) to be soteriological. That 'Lord' refers to Christ can be seen in that Christ is the redeemer (1Peter 1:18-19) and since despo

Shortly after the death of James Arminius in 1609, his followers summarized his views into the five points of the remonstrants. At Dort, the Calvinists requested a clarification of the remonstrants views. Lead by Episcopius, they drafted the Opinions of the Remonstrants, which expand on the five points. They are organized under the original five points (conditional election, unlimited atonement, total depravity, resistible grace and perseverance) and should be seen as sub-points under the five points of the remonstrants. On election, they have three subpoints objecting to supra-lapsarianism, one objecting to infra-lapsarianism and three more subpoints defining conditional election. Additionally, they added two points rejecting the damnation of children of believers, if the children die in infancy. On the atonement they affirm that Christ died for all men, such that salvation is possible for all men and God desires all men to believe and be saved, but He only saves believers. In the

John Davis’ article "The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine" outlines the thought around perseverance and assurance through certain key theologians and churches through the history of the Christianity. Davis starts with Augustine who held that not everyone who is regenerated and justified receives the gift of final perseverance and a person cannot know if they will preserver until the end. Aquinas held a similar view to Augustine. Luther held a similar view as well, but he added that while a person cannot know if they will preserver until the end, they may know that the are currently saved. Calvin’s view was quite different than Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. The elect alone are regenerated and justified and they will preserver until the end. Not only can a person know they are currently saved, but they can also know they will preserver until the end. Further, perseverance is not only grounded in God’s eternal election, but also the nature of regeneratio

This post is a response to Mark Linville's argument against the way Occhamists and Molinists reconcile God's foreknowledge with human freedom in his article "Occhamists and Molinists in Search of a Way out". Linville’s Agument Using Hasker’s arguments based on the combination of the necessity of the past and God’s essential omniscience, Linville concludes Occhamists cannot hold counterfactual power over the past (i.e. if I do X, the past would have been different). Rather Occhamists must hold to actual power over the past (i.e. I have the ability to move from the possible world I am in to a different one with a different past). Linville concludes this is the only valid way for Occhamists to reconcile God's foreknowledge with libertarian freewill.  However,  'actual power over the past' lets compatiblists off the hook on the consequence argument, since the consequence argument 1 is based on the inalterability of the past. But Molinists are commit

The purpose of the post is to so demonstrate that Arminius taught that God had middle knowledge. Recently several authors, who are otherwise adherents to Arminian theology, have made claims that Arminius did not in fact teach middle knowledge. 1 I hope to demonstrate that Arminius taught that God had middle knowledge, and it was fundamental to his view on predestination and providence. Since the purpose of this paper is the clarification of Arminius’ views and not a defense of the doctrine itself, I will use far more quotes from Arminius than from scripture. What is Middle Knowledge? Middle knowledge is important in being able to explain the co-existence of God’s decrees and providence, and man’s freewill. Simply put, middle knowledge is the view that God knows that if X happen, Y would happen. Middle knowledge gets the name middle, because it is logically in-between two other types of knowledge. If comes after natural knowledge and before free knowledge. Natural knowledge is th

Steve Hays responded to my posts on the Trinity. ( link ) My response is long, so I will break it into four parts, Steve’s view and my view on Consubstantiality and Steve’s view and my view on Eternal Generation. ii) As Gerald Bray points out (The Doctrine of God, 168-69), Nicene subordination goes back to the Plotinian model of divine emanation: One-Mind-Soul Nicene subordination adapts that paradigm the Trinity: Father-Son-Spirit If Dan regards Plotinian Neoplatonism as the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy, that’s his business. I’d rather keep my theology squared with something called the Bible. Well some folks disagree with that assessment and point to Monotheism in Jewish thought instead. 1   And for good reason: the Platonic concept of emanations was altered by the Church Fathers from the idea of a God to creation emintation to the idea of an emination internal to God. 2 It’s true that pre-Athanasian fathers from time to time say things I don’t like, although th

Steve Hays responded to my posts on the Trinity. ( link ) My response is long, so I will break it into four parts, Steve’s view and my view on Consubstantiality and Steve’s view and my view on Eternal Generation. a) The Bible doesn’t teach the eternal generation of the Son. Not that I can see. b) There is also the exegetical question as to whether the Bible even applies that specific metaphor to Christ. Most NT scholars and lexicographers challenge the traditional rendering of monogenes. The passages with ‘gennao’ ( Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, 5:5 ) are not really in question, even if those with monogenes are. Do you really question if begotten (or Fathered) applies to Christ? That goes against some rather plain scriptural statements. BTW, the 381AD version of the Nicene Creed says “begotten of the Father before all worlds”. Same with the Athanasian Creed: “begotten before the worlds”. Likewise the 39 articles of the church of England: “begotten from everlasting of the Father”. Same w

Steve Hays responded to my posts on the Trinity. ( link ) My response is long, so I will break it into four parts, Steve’s view and my view on Consubstantiality and Steve’s view and my view on Eternal Generation. How does Dan happen to know how the “church at large” understands the Nicene creed? "The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit; their mutual relation as expressed by those terms; their absolute unity as to substance or essence, and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal." ( Hodge. Vol 1. 6.6 ) From a historical standpoint, your argume

Steve Hays responded to my posts on the Trinity. ( link ) My response is long, so I will break it into four parts, Steve’s view and my view on Consubstantiality and Steve’s view and my view on Eternal Generation. I didn’t affirm or deny that all members of the Trinity are numerically one in essence. Stafford asserted that Hebrews 1:3 relates to God and Christ’s essence rather than their persons. 1 You responded, not by contradicting him on this point, but by describing the consubstantial identity of the Father with the Son in terms of a numerical distinction: As to Heb 1:3, we need to keep a couple of things in mind: i) To speak of the Son as a “copy” of God is figurative image. A metaphor is an analogy. Every analogy has an element of disanalogy. So the question at issue is to single out the intended point of commonality. Stafford, with wooden literality, acts as if the process of replication is the point of commonality. But x can be a copy of y in another sense: resemblanc