Dan Chapa

Recently, Scott Clark rescued an anti-Molinist quote by Voetius from the brink of oblivion. From the points which have been so far upheld against middle knowledge it is clear that the whole difficulty in the present controversy reduces to this one point: Could free conditioned things, from eternity indifferent by nature to futurition or nonfuturition, have passed over into the state of a future event otherwise than by the divine decree? This is the fundamental of fundamentals, on which the whole weight of the case rests. This is that postulate, which both we cannot concede to our adversaries and they cannot prove to us. …Middle knowledge is effective and congruous for any end by its nature. Upon it God is forced to wait in the wise framing of His decrees, which are bound to have a fixed result. The truth or falsity of future conditioned free ones is not known from their causes or from the divine decree, but from the actual occurrence of the thing. Before every act of His will God can s

Benson’s comments on Proverbs 16:1 are short and sweet so here are his words: Proverbs 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue. That is, in short, 1st, Man may purpose; he hath a freedom of thought and of will permitted him; he may form his projects, and lay his schemes as he thinks best; but, after all, 2d, God disposeth ; he easily can, and often does, cross man's purposes, and break his measures: nor can man proceed with success in any undertaking, nor carry into execution any design, without God's assistance and blessing. It was a curse that was prepared in Balaam's heart, but the answer of the tongue was a blessing.

The Westminister Confession (a popular Calvinistic confession) states: I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil. ( link ) Yet Fisher invites us to imaging a world in which causal determinism is true: "even if he were to wake up to the headline, "Causal Determinism is True!" (and he were convinced of its truth). Nor need the compatibilist give up any of his basic metaphysical views — apparently apriori metaphysical truths that support his views about free will — simply because the theoretical physicists have established that the relevant probabilities are 100 percent rather than 99 percent. Wouldn't it be bizarre to give up a principle such as that the past is fixed and out of our control or that logical truths are fixed and out of our control, simply because one has been convinced that the probabilities in question are 100 percent rather than 99 percent. A

Robert Doyle Smith's articles JOHN WESLEY AND JONATHAN EDWARDS ON RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, summarizes the similarities and differences between John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. Of course they disagreed on Calvinism/Arminianism. But they strongly agreed that the beginning of conversion is realizing that you are a sinner in need of God's grace and both of their preaching styles reflected that ideal. They disagreed on the topics of the imputed righteousness of Christ and also entire sanctification.

In Brian Abasciano's article Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election, he explains that corporate election is primarily corporate and secondarily individual, but it’s a mistake to think of corporate election to the exclusion of the individual. In corporate election, the election of the group is a consequence of the election of the corporate head and representative. Thus the nation of Israel is chosen in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and believers are chosen in Christ. Just as in OT times, individuals were free to join or leave the group, so also, in the new covenant, individuals are free to join or leave. Next, Brian deals with misconceptions about Corporate Election. He addresses the misconception that Corporate Election Excludes Individuals by pointing out that although election is primarily corporate, it's secondarily individual. This misconception is cleared up primarily by reviewing the definition and explanation of corporate election. Brian addresses the miscon

I was recently asked to comment on Isaiah 5:4 and how I thought it supported resistible grace. ( link ) Here's the passage in context: 1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes? 5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned; And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. 6 I will lay it waste; It shall not be pruned or du