Dan Chapa

Romans 10  Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is thatthey may be saved.  2  For I bear them witness that they have azeal for God, but not according to knowledge.  3  For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking toestablish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.  4  For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness toeveryone who believes. 5  For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the personwho does the commandments shall live by them.  6  But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not sayin your heart , ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)  7  “or ‘Who will descend into theabyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).  8  But what does it say? “The word is near you,in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim) ;  9  because,if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in yourheart that God raised him f

In Ineffabilus Deus, Pope Pius IX’s declaration of the Immaculate Conception (the idea that Mary was born without original sin), the Pope referred to sanctions issued by previous Popes, forbidding interpreting scripture or the fathers in a way other than clearly asserting the Immaculate Conception. 1   He then commissions a study by numbers scholars to get their opinion on the Immaculate Conception. 2      Of course, they are forbidden from giving him any other answer then the one he wants them to give.   There are a rot of problems with this approach, but one of them is that people’s opinions are inherently personal and ultimately can’t be outsourced.   ----------------------------------------------------------- 1   "And therefore, against all and everyone of those who shall continue to construe the said Constitutions and Decrees in a manner apt to frustrate the favor which is thereby given to the said doctrine, and to the feast and relative veneration, or who shall dare

Steve Hays and I had a previous exchange on if 1 Corinthians 10:13 teaches libertarian free will or not.  ( link ) Regarding the question of if “no temptation has overtaken you then that which is common to man” is a general principle Paul is applying to a specific situation as I think or if as Steve thinks, Paul has only the temptation of idolatrous apostasy in mind, I doubt I can provide an answer that is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Still I think the language itself makes it more likely than not, that Paul is applying  a general rule.  After all, Paul says “no temptation” rather than the temptation of idolatrous apostasy.  I had said: Paul is applying a general principle to a specific situation, so even though idolatry is in view, that does not limit this wonderful promise that God, in His faithfulness, will not allow irresistible temptations. Steve Responded: In Arminianism, sufficient grace is resistible grace. So the “wonderful promise” is that God will give Christians (i

Steve Hays continues to question the way translators have rendered Deuteronomy 30:14.  ( link )  His primary reason seems to be the flexibility of the Hebrew, not some problem with the translators’ contextual analysis and selected rendering.  That’s like questioning most translations simply because they are translations.  I had said: Other translations render it “so that you may do it”. While may sometimes means permission as in “mother may I” or uncertainty, as in “it may rain”, neither of these senses make sense of the verse. It’s not as if God is now removing sanctions against morality, or guessing if they will obey or not. Rather, may is equivalent to “can” and expresses ability or capacity. Steve responded: "May" doesn't have the same nuance as "can." Agreed, but I already walked through why this usage of “may” expresses ability rather than uncertainty or permission.  You can’t destroy the building in front of you by saying buildings have to

Thank you Dan and Turretinfan for engaging in this debate on Does The Bible Teaches Libertarian Free Will and edifying the body of Christ. We like to also thank you the listener for setting time aside and joining us for this debate. Just for a quick closing thought, we must remember this is an in house debate that has gone on for centuries in Christendom.  This is not a test of Christian orthodoxy but is still a very important secondary understanding.  We are called to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind so we must wrestle with this understanding as revealed to us in Scripture.  This is what Dan and Turretinfan has done here in this debate.  They have challenged the opposing view while expounding their own position to the edification of the body for the glory of God. What is not up for debate is the means of saving faith.  We all here agree that salvation is through Jesus Christ and Him alone.  The reformers taught that there are 3 components to true saving faith:

Thank you Jeff and Turretinfan.  This debate has been helpful for me, in that it gave me reason to dig deeper into God’s word.  And that’s a good thing.  I want to say I appreciate Jeff and Turretinfan’s time and efforts that went into this.  That said, I do find turretinfan’s view monstrous.  Rodger Olson finds divine determinism monstrous because God is ultimately behind the fall, every sin after it and the losts’ being in hell.  I find it monstrous for another reason. The scriptural evidence for determinism is like the lock ness monster.  There’s plenty of fuzzy photo’s and doctored evidence but no hard proof to be found for divine determinism.  Arguments that turretinfan used like the hardening are irrelevant, because it’s an exception rather than the rule. Is anyone going to say that all the sins ever committed are the result of God’s hardening?  No way. It’s also insufficient because as I pointed out, the passages say that Pharaoh will not let the people go, not that he can

The first point that we should consider is that the affirmative burden has not been met.  If fact, all that scripture does is speak about choosing, which both on compatiblism and on LFW is the case. More significantly, scripture even speaks of the will being exercised, choices being made and God determining those things, hand in hand, which shows that those two things are compatible.  That’s the strongest evidence that we could get that those things are compatible and we haven’t had anything from the other side.  There’s no where in scripture that says the other way, that they are incompatible.  Most of the argument has revolved around whether or not something is a real possibility if unbeknownst to us, God has determined which of the two possibilities we will choose.  In other words, what it comes down to is one side shouting more loudly that such and such isn’t a real possibility if in fact God has determined we will select the other possibility of the two possibilities.  Or th

TF:  Thank you very much.  Do you believe God ordained the fall? Dan: Please define ordained. TF: ha, ha.  I see.  Did you provide in your affirmative constructive a definition of libertarian free will? Dan: Yes, I said the essence of libertarian free will is the ability to choose something or not.  I used the example of ice cream, the ability to choose ice cream or not. TF: did you address the question of whether or not that involves the denial of the compatibility with determinism? Dan:  No, not in my opening speech.  We just dealt with it in the last cross ex.  Specifically the one possible future vs two possibilities.  One does not equal two so one is incompatible with the definition of two.  One future, two futures.  One possibility, two possibilities.  TF: Did you provide a definition of possibility? Dan: No, would you like one? TF: In the usual sense people talk about possibilities, do they have any reference to God’s decrees? Dan: Let me gi

Dan: how should we go about defining scriptural terms? TF: The best way define terms in scripture is of course to look at them in context and try to determine authorial intent.  See what the author was intending to convey. Dan: Do you believe the bible was written to the common man?  To Israel or this or that church.  Was it written for the common man to read? TF: Yes. Dan: OK, do you believe dictionaries cite common usage? TF: Dictionaries provide common contemporary usage, yes. Dan: OK, do you believe the usage of the word choose has drastically changed over time? TF: No, I didn’t take that position. Dan: Ok, I was just wondering if that’s what you believed.  Do you believe an elect person can fall away and ultimately perish? TF: I don’t believe that’s a question about anything I argued but to answer the question the scriptures teach that all those, who He called, He justified, and all those He justified, He ultimately glorified.   So that implie