Dan Chapa

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens

One of the clearest passages in scripture teaching Christ came to save each and every person is John 12:46-48: I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.  And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world .  He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. Notice a few things about world.  First, Christ comes "into" the world. You go into a place, in this case Christ went into the planet earth. And who on earth will be judged one day?  Each and every person who ever lived on earth.  So who did Christ come to save?  Every person who has ever lived on the earth,  including those who rejected Him and will be judged on the last day.  One of the key issues in the limited/unlimited atonement debate is God's intention, plan and design in sending Christ i

Hopefully this blog is helpful on middle knowledge ( middle knowledge tag ) But here’s a bunch more resources. Molina, Luis de , Alfred Freddoso Molinism , Alfred Freddoso A Molinist View of Election Or How to Be a Consistent Infralapsarian , by Ken Keatherly Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection , William Lane Craig Middle Knowledge, Truth–Makers, and the "Grounding Objection" , William Lane Craig 'Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God' (2 Peter 1.21): A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration , William Lane Craig "Lest Anyone Should Fall": A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings , William Lane Craig Molinism and Romans 9 , William Lane Craig Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise (especially chapter 3) , Joseph Pohle, Arthur Preuss Natural Theology (especially book 2, chapter 4), by Bernard Boedder A collection of tracts concerning predestination and pro

Many take Christ’s words in Matthew 19:11 as only talking about the gift of celibacy – not marrying to focus on God.  But Christ’s words have another aspect – if your heart is hard, you will not accept God’s restrictions on divorce and sleeping around.  Here’s the passage in context. Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts , permitted you to divorce yo

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:” and this is worse than death. Then to show how it is at once death and enmity; “for it is not subject to the Law of God,” he says, “neither indeed can be.” But be not troubled at hearing the “neither indeed can be.” For this difficulty admits of an easy solution. For what he here names “carnal mindedness” is the reasoning (or “way of thinking,” λογισμὸν) that is earthly, gross, and eager-hearted after the things of this life and its wicked doings. It is of this he says “neither yet can” it “be subject” to God. And what hope of salvation is there left, if it be impossible for one who is bad to become good? This is not what he says. Else how would Paul have become such as he was? how would the (penitent) thief, or Manasses, or the Ninevites, or how would David after falling have recovered himself? How would Peter after the denial have raised himself up? ( 1 Cor. v. 5 .) How could he that had lived in fornication have been enlisted among Ch

No, even if infants sin, that does not mean God would send then to hell if they die.  The "age of accountability" is more about the time when children can trust in Christ for salvation, rather then when they can first sin.  Most parents realize their young children do things they shouldn't long before they can understand the Gospel.  I tried explaining this to a Presbyterian once, but he insisted the age of accountability means young children are not moral agents - they cannot sin.  So here's a few quotes on the age of accountability (frankly the first three hits off a Google search, but they do the trick). "It doesn't mean that they are not fallen; it doesn't mean that they are not sinful -- it does mean that God mercifully treats them as "innocent" in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe." ( John MacArthur Grace to you ) "Frequently lost in the discussion reg

Both Calvinist and Arminians hold to total depravity, which minimally includes the idea that man cannot believe without God’s grace, but they mean very different things by this. Most of the historic controversy has centered on what each side means by God’s grace; but it’s time to look at what each side means by “man cannot believe”. I am going to argue that total depravity is not compatible with compatiblism. Because Arminianism asserts and Calvinism denies total depravity in ordinary everyday language, Arminianism makes better sense of total depravity. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.  (See also Job 15:14, Romans 8:7-8, John 6:65, John 15:5, and Romans 5:6) When our Lord says “no man can come to me”, does He mean we would not come to Him even if we wanted to? No if we wanted to we would come. Christ is not saying we have a physical defect with our minds, such that we cannot think the thoughts.

Recently I had separate conversations with Steve Hays and Turretinfan both of which got down to the charge that "you're using philosophical speculation, I am using scripture".  A serious charge, this; one wants his theology to be grounded in scripture rather than floating away via the levitating power of thin air. However, faith and reason are often intertwined; can you even trust scripture's words without trusting your eyes, ears and brain more than some philosophers are willing to do? We all have philosophies whether we are aware of them or not. My comments in blue; Steve and Turretinfan's comments in red. ------------------------------ http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/12/outside-camp.html Steve: Then I read a book by Jerry Walls and David Baggett which says my God could command people to torture little children for the fun of it. When I read that, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. It doesn’t offend me. But it does alienate me. It instantly dissolves any

But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. (Exodus 3:19) Pharaoh wouldn't let the Hebrews go - not out of love for God or the Hebrews.  Not from guilt or respect or fear or reason or wisdom.  No, it took force.  And how did God know that all non-forceful ways would not lead Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go?  Because He knows what anyone would choose under any circumstances.  This passages support for middle knowledge is less famous then say, Matthew 11:21, but it is more broad.  God knew that a vast array of options Moses could have tried would not lead Pharaoh to freely release the Hebrews.  

Usual accuracy; exceptionally witty.  ( link )