Dan Chapa

Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) discuss 1 Tim 4:10, and briefly answer a question from the David Pallmann/Derick Murrell debate regarding foreknowledge and the atonement.   The main points of disconcurrance on 1 Tim 4:10 were the meaning of "savior" and "especially". Background  1 Timothy is Paul’s letter to his traveling companion, Timothy, who he sent to the Church he started in Ephesus to deal with some heretics, including Alexander and Hymenaeus.   He only reveals bits and pieces about the heresy, but it involved miss-use of the law, forbidding marriage, food restrictions, and exercise. 2 Timothy (Titus, 2 Peter and 1 John) deal with the same heresy, some early form of Gnosticism (think Dan Brown DaVinci code type stuff) Christ die for all verses Hebrews 2:9, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, John 12:32, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 Directly addresses the extent of the atonement Similar to the “World” texts, but all is an open ended, distributive term, whereas world is a lar...

Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) briefly review Dan's discussion with Leighton Flowers on total depravity, then dig in to 1 Timothy 2:4-6. The main points of discucurrance were talking "all men" to mean everyone or not, does Christ's being the Mediator and ransom guarantee effectual mediation and freedom or not, should we pray for everyone and is the reference to testification related to preaching the gospel to everyone? Explanation of the Passage 1 Timothy 2 1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom...

Why does Paul refer to only believers as “called” in 1 Cor 1:24? In Matthew 22, called (kletos) means “invited” in Christ’s parable of the wedding feast and it’s easy to see why Gentiles, who hadn’t previously been invited, would be exited by their invitation or that the host of a party might refer them as “his invited guests”. What I like about “invited” is it highlights the graciousness and initiative of the host and the newness to the Gentiles, but that alone might not be enough to explain why believers came to be know as “the called”. “Invited” seems to be missing the authority of the call, the group aspect, and the exclusivity. “Summoned”, like a court summons, is better because it highlights the commanding nature and responsibility to respond. But the group aspect is best brought about as “assembled” or “a convocation” like kletos is used in the LXX for Exodus 12:16 or Leviticus 23:2. A church is an ekklesia or assembly and the root is the same as kletos and they are exclusively ...

My main arguments were that mercy in Rom. 9:15-16 is about salvation rather than unconditional election and that Rom 9:17-23 is about judicial hardening that can be reversed rather than unconditional reprobation.  I hope you find it helpful. 

 

Last night, I debated Turretinfan on Romans 8, especially the Golden Chain.

I grew up in the DC area and I’ve been following the Redskins for as long as I can remember.   As a Cowboys fan, they are our main rival. I’m Mexican-American and brown skinned, but if I get a bit of sun, I don’t really burn, but turn a nice reddish/gold. As a kid, our family vacations were often to Laredo to see family and I remember fondly visiting my Tio Pete in Nuevo-Laredo.   To me, Laredo was one big city divided by the river.   What’s the difference between the Aztec and the Navajo?   The Aztec’s were said to have come down from the north and there are linguistic similarities.   Sure, they were different nations, but were they different races?   I don’t think so, any more than I think the Germans and Swiss are different races.   Am I Native American or am I Hispanic?   Even census and school questions still seem to have confusion on this.   If you say you are Native American, you are supposed to provide a tribe.   Is...

Actions presuppose an actor.   A person thinks, walks, talks.   A person’s actions are not independent of them.   Time measures change, relative to at least two entities, like my motion down the sidewalk relative to the earth’s motion around the sun.                You cannot climb the tower of babel because it no longer exists. That matter that used to be part of the tower still exists, but it has changed in shape and location.   Choices are actions and they presuppose the existence of the actor.   Relative to the motion of the sun, our minds may have changed and the state of the remains of the tower of babel may have changed. Our mental state of choosing X is not some new existent any more than the remains of the tower of babel is some new existent.   Human free will is no threat to God’s aseity or His unique ex nihilo creation.   Only God can create or annihilate entities.   God alone do...

Tout Estin (“that is” or “this means”) is commonly used to introduce an interpretation, especially an interpretation of scripture, both in the Old and New Testament. [1]   Here are a few examples in Romans by Paul: Deuteronomy 30:12-14 For this commandment I give you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not in heaven, that you should need to ask, ‘Who will ascend into heaven to get it for us and proclaim it, that we may obey it?’ And it is not beyond the sea, that you should need to ask, ‘Who will cross the sea to get it for us and proclaim it, that we may obey it?’ But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may obey it. Romans 10:6-9 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ( that is , to bring Christ down) or, ‘Who will descend into the Abyss?’ ( that is , to bring Christ up from the dead).”  But what does it say? “The word is near you; i...