Dan Chapa

The New Living Translation (the most popular English version of the bible) has numerous translation errors that favor Calvinism and oppose standard Arminian or Traditional Baptist interpretation of the texts.  For example, Ephesians 4:30 in the ESV states “ And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption .”  However the New Living Translation has “ And do not bring sorrow to God’s Holy Spirit by the way you live. Remember, he has identified you as his own, guaranteeing that you will be saved on the day of redemption .”  There's no basis in the Greek for the NLT's additions and it appears to be more of a commentary than a translation.  The attached study documents these errors. The New Living Translation and Calvinism

In John 10:26 Christ says “ you do not believe because you are not of my sheep ”.  A good friend of mine said this was the clincher for him; the reason he became a Calvinist.  Calvinist argue that Christ’s sheep are the unconditionally elect and the reason some don’t believe is because they are not unconditionally elect.  But there’s good reason to think this is not what the passage means.  In this post I will argue that Christ's statement should be understood as providing reasons to know the Jews have rejected Him rather than stating reprobation causes unbelief.   John 10:24 says: Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” About two months had passed since Christ’s Good Shepard discourse in John 10:1-19.  Now the Jews try to trap Jesus by asking if He wa...

Steve recently asked: " I've been thinking about Matthew 11:21-23 as a non-Calvinist. If God knew the people in Tyre and Sidon (or other places) would repent under certain circumstances, why did not God bring about those circumstances? E.g. do the mighty works there ." The passage states: 21 “ Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Christ is rebuking Bethsaida and Chorazin for their stubborn unrepentance in light of His mighty works and witness among them.  So the question amounts to, why did the Father send Christ to the Jews knowing t...

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 d...

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 an...

The Scholastics used to ask “does predestination place anything in the predestined?” A relevant question indeed concerning Acts 4:28. Consider the translation change from the 1984 NIV to the 2012 ISV: “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” 1984 New International Version “to carry out everything that your hand and will had predetermined to take place” 2012 International Standard Version The NIV speaks of God’s choice – a mental resolution on His part – the ISV speaks of God’s actions impacting and determining the events. In the NIV, God’s mind is set; in the ISV the events are set. The Greek term proorizo is flexible in either direction – both translations are permissible. Yet the ISV clarifies the ambiguous term in favor of Calvinism. The argument for determinism based on the ISV is simple – God predetermined sinful actions for which man is morally responsible, therefore compatible determinism is true. But this argument is not quite so ...

Interpretation brings out the meaning of something. There has to be some original being interpreted and some level of faithfulness to represent that original. When interpreting the bible, you have to know what the bible says and try to represent what it says. Now bad interpretations are still interpretations. Much leeway can be given for those who are not experienced in the word of truth (Hebrews 5:14). A child might interpret scripture badly, but they are still interpreting scripture, so long as they are trying to represent what they read. But if someone simply disagrees with scripture, they are not interpreting scripture. For example, if someone “rationalizes” a biblical account of a miracle, they are not interpreting scripture. Because intent is involved, sometimes it’s hard to say if someone is interpreting the bible or not. For example, I recently read a homosexual argue Paul, in Romans 1:26-27, does not condemn all homosexual activity. When someone challenged this, the...

John 3:16 is one of the most well known and loved passages in the bible - because it summarize the Gospel so nicely. Some Calvinists limit "world" from meaning everyone, but many Calvinists do see that John 3:16 is about everyone. 1  That is to say, they agree that God has a general love for all mankind that moved Him to send His Son.  But they stop there, just short of saying God intends to apply the work of His Son to each and every person to save all.  But don't forget verse 17: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. God's purpose in sending His Son was so that the world [each and every individual], through Christ Jesus, might be saved.  Contra Dort's claim that: " it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he c...

1 Corinthians 10:13 states: No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. Paul claims God's faithfulness in light of what some Jews did, such as grumble in the desert. Not all the Israelites fell into sin, but many did, even though God always provides His people with an exit path. That God does not allow unbearable temptations is a frank expression of His faithfulness. The application for Paul's audience and Christians generally is that every time we are tempted, God gives us the ability not to yield. Sadly we sometimes do give in to temptation, even though we are able to do otherwise.   Most people agree the Bible teaches libertarian free will without further ado.   But some, perhaps those from Missouri, need details, so this post attempts to provide argumentation that 1 Cori...

Dr. Andrew Davis wrote chapter 3 of Whomever He Wills 1 , which counters Dr. Richard Land's chapter in Whosoever Wills called Congruent Election.  Two high level observations before digging into the details.  First, Dr. Davis does not get into corporate election.  It's not Davis' fault - he is responding to Land and Land doesn't get into corporate election.  But given the popularity of corporate election among Traditionalists and other non-Calvinist, the chapter feels incomplete.  Second, Land constantly calls for a balanced view, one that accounts for passages on election as well as passages such as John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 2 Peter 3:9, which express God's love for all and will for all to be saved.  Davis only deals with election passages - he doesn't touch texts expressing God's love and desire for all to be saved.  Maybe Davis' view is as balanced as Land would like, but his treatment in this chapter is not. The first thing about this chapte...

This book follows " Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis " as Dr. Abasciano dives deeper into Romans 9 by examining 9:10-18.  ( link to Amazon ) The work is organized, in-depth and supported by careful examination of the original languages as well as a broad reading of historic and current scholarship. Its main appeal is to those who enjoy detailed exegetical works and those seeking answers on Romans 9. A big picture view is in order before digging into the details. Dr. Abasciano holds that Romans 9 teaches corporate election, so his interpretation is not Calvinistic, nor is it like the church fathers who held Romans 9 teaches election based on foreknowledge, nor is it like the dispensationalists who hold Romans 9 describes the election of Israel to non-saving blessings, nor is it like the many classic Arminians who said the passage teaches how God will save (i.e. by faith) rather than who God will save (though Dr. Ab...

Brian Flemming's independent documentary, the God who wasn't there, was recently added to Netflix's instant viewing, so I watched it to see what atheists are up to these days. The movie is filled to the brim with blaspemous lies, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone exept perhaps mature Christians who know their bibles well and are interested in defending their faith. One of the many lies that caught my attention was that Paul did not know the historical details about Christ's life, and he doesn't even view Christ as a human being. This is absurd, given Saul dedicated his life to killing Christians, and Paul knew the apostles, traveled with Mark and even met Christ. And while his letters are not focused on giving a historical account of Christ's life, Paul does show he knows many of the details of Christ life. Paul knew Christ was the descendant of Abraham and David (2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 1:3, Galatians 3:16). Cross reference Matthew 1:1. Paul kn...

Summary of the Passage The passage comes at a time when Judah has lost it's freedom and possession of the promised land; Ezekiel himself being among the Babylonian exiles 1 .  This presents a new question for God's people; why don't we have the land?   2 Kings 23:25-26 and 2 Kings 24:3-4 attribute Judah's suffering at the hands of the Babylonians several generations back to the heinous sins of King Manasseh. God's judgement should have lead the Jews to look to their own sins but instead, they blamed their parents using the saying " The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge ". 2   This complains of sons suffering for their fathers sins and may even refer back to Adam and Eve's eating the forbidden fruit, with it's consequences on mankind. God rejects the notion that blame can be shifted to parents, claiming His rule ( all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul o...

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) ;...

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...