Dan Chapa

During Arminius' day Calvinists used six distinctions to hold God decreed Adam's fall while denying God is the author of sin. Below are my paraphrases and summaries of the distinctions and Arminius’ responses. Here’s a link to the original text. ( link ) The Act and the Sin The first distinction is " in sin there are two things, the act and its sinfulness. God, by his own ordination, is the author of the act, not of the sinfulness in the act . Arminius argues that the distinction works for sins of omission (i.e. giving money to the church for public praise is a good act done for the wrong reasons) but not for sins of commission, because the acts themselves are against the law. But Adam's fall was a sin of commission, so the distinction is unhelpful. Also, since God's goal was to illustrate His glory and justice, the fall was decreed in that it was evil, not just in that it was an act, since sin (not the act) is forgiven or punished. Even if God predetermined someon...

Steve Hays' post denying eternal procession in the Nicene creed caught my eye. ( link ) Here's our recent exchange ( link ). 1. I don’t regard Wikipedia as the gold standard of theological discourse. Nor do I, but it is popular and common. 2. ”Consubstantial” simply means “of one and the same substance or essence” (OED). Yes, but in the context of the Arian dispute, it carries an additional connotation, since neither side considered multiple divine essences. 3. At a minimum, the purpose of the homoousios clause was to exclude the notion that the Son is merely of “like essence” with the Father, rather than identical essence. True, that's the core. 4. From what I’ve read, there’s a scholarly dispute over the more specialized question of whether homoousios was also meant to denote generic identity or numeric identity. You appealed to Calvin. Here's what he had to say on the subject: While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons...

William Rowe's book asks the question: Can God be Free ? First, he gives an interesting historical introduction to the subject covering the views of Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Clarke, Thomas Aquinas, and Jonathan Edwards; meanwhile he chimes in with his critique of their views from time to time. Then he discusses more recent treatments, such as Adams, Kretzmann, Howard-Snyder, Morris, Hasker, Wainwright, Langtry, Menssen, Wierenga, Flint, Swinburne, and Talbott. Rowe seems to hold that libertarian freedom is necessary for responsibility and he dismisses compatiblism as 'language gone on holiday'. Based on Leibniz's argument that God must have created the best of all possible worlds, Rowe argues a forking maneuver: either creation was necessary and God is not praiseworthy or God doesn't exist. Historic Overview Leibniz articulated two ideas that vital to the discussion. The first is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which states: there ought to be a reason why...

This is part of an ongoing discussion on determinism... ( Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul , me , Paul ) Even if I granted that 21st century common man understands choice in a libertarian way… that doesn't imply that X-century BC Jews thought that way. Paul is welcome to address the reasons I have already provided, based on the common consent of modern scholarship and extra-biblical Jewish writings. Dan must grant the possibility that in an increasingly secular society, given the state of public education, and given the direction science is heading; the "common man" will believe this: "All things are physically determined with generalizations and conditionals having 100% probabilities associated with them." I am not sure the common man is in a position to evaluate that claim. as I argued from Kane, the common man also has problems with indeterminate happenings. He only said they would, if they held certain mistaken notions. Dan writes that the problem wit...

In Bavinck’s article on supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination ( link ), he disagrees with supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism about 90% of the time, so we get very few glimpses of what he actually believes. I went through the article and pulled out all the positive statements by Bavinck about predestination. I came out with 10 statements. Upon examining the statements, I noted that the majority of them are either in tension with each other or leave a major term undefined. Statements in tension with each other (i.e. that seem to move in opposite directions - although they don’t formally contradict each other, no reconciliation is provided): (statement) On the one hand, both election and reprobation presuppose sin, and are deeds of mercy and of justice, Rom. 9:15; Eph. 1:4; (counter) on the other hand both [election and reprobation] are also deeds of divine right and sovereignty, Rom. 9:11, 17, 21. (statement) At times Scripture expresses itself so strongly that reprobatio...

When Cecilia was martyred (approx 180 AD) she extended three fingers on one hand, and one finger on her other hand, indicating her belief in one God in three persons. It's an essential belief of Christianity; you're either in our you're out.

Here’s a recap of some highlights from my debate with Turretinfan on God’s freewill. (Fair warning, I am being selective and I am summarizing things in my own words!!! The debate was massive, so I am picking the parts I thought most important. I am however providing links to all the posts of the debate.) TF : Libertarian Freewill (LFW) seems illogical. We either have no reason for our choices or our choices are determined. Me : If LFW is illogical, God doesn’t have LFW. But Genesis 1:1 teaches God has LFW, because causal forces couldn’t have preceded God’s first act. TF : Although there was no action before Creation, nevertheless God's nature and counsel, being eternal, preceded the first action. ...Thus, there is a cause and explanation for Creation: the Triune God. Me : Good! That’s agent causation and it’s half the battle. Now the other half. It rained this afternoon. Given whatever existed before the first act, was it absolutely impossible for God to create a world wh...

Here's my response to Turretinfan's latest post . Gabcast ! Dan's blog #10 I also wanted to extend Turretinfan the offer once again to join me in a conference call. God be with you, Dan

This post is part of Turretinfan's and my ongoing debate regarding God's freewill, with responses to TF's questions here . Hopefully, TF will agree to a chat. Gabcast! Dan's blog #8 Here's the links I talk about ( link ) and ( link ). God be with you, Dan

Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God. Outline of Edwards' Arguments About the Necessity of the God's Will - Part IV.VII Arminians say that if God doesn’t have LFW, God is stuck in fate. The Arminian argument is based on the idea that LFW is a good thing, but acting according to nature is not disadvantageous – especially in God’s case where His nature is perfect. The sovereignty of God is in His ability and authority to do as He pleases. His power is infinite and His authority supreme. His will is not dependent on anything outside Himself, but it is determined by His infinite wisdom. God’s wisdom determines His will to what is most wise. Otherwise God is unwise, which is unworthy of God. Arminians themselves say God cannot choose contrary to the fitness of things due to His wisdom. If the fitness of things necessitating God’s actions doesn’t detract from His glory, neither does it detrac...

Background - LFW and responsibility Under LFW, we are the causal source of our choices (i.e. nothing causally predetermines our choices); we are responsible for our choices. There’s nowhere else to go to. We can’t back track to something else - we are responsible. Under CFW, since our actions are causally predetermined, we can trace back the cause of our actions to something outside of us. Thus, we keep searching for the source of our actions to find out what’s ultimately responsible. When Calvinists say God is the ultimate source, we say they make God ultimately responsible for sin. Even if God establishes a system in which only secondary causes get punished and the primary cause does not (as Calvinists suppose), that doesn’t change the fact that God is ultimately responsible for sin. The issue isn’t one of God’s power or sovereignty, it’s a matter of His goodness and holiness. This is a classic Arminian argument, but Edwards attempts to turn the tables on Arminians, by arguing a...

Here’s the chain of posts between Turretinfan and myself leading to this one: ( TF ), ( Me ), ( TF ), ( Me ), ( TF ). I had asked: It rained this afternoon. Was it absolutely impossible for God to create a world which didn’t include rain this afternoon? TF requested clarification, so I am providing it… My question was not intended to be a puzzle, but I will see if I can clarify. Since I am not sure what you think I will go with a sort of drag net approach. Given whatever existed before the first act, was it absolutely impossible for God to create a world which didn’t include rain on May 31, 2008 in the afternoon? Where the “first act” is either creation or whatever else you might consider God’s first act. Where “first” probably means temporal order but if you believe in atemporal, but logically sequenced, actions, then logical order. Where “act” means you would no longer just say “God is XYZ”, but “God does (or did) XYZ”. Where “act” includes not only physical motion but also s...

Turretinfan argued for determinism ( here ) to which I responded ( here ) and he has again responded ( here ). I had argued: "The first verse in scripture claims that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ( Genesis 1:1 ) We either understand this by faith, or we do not. ( Hebrews 11:3 ) Consider God’s first action. By definition, no act of God preceded that first act. So no causes preceded that action. Rather, God self-determined that action, by performing it. Thus, contrary to Calvinism, self-determining power exists." TF responded: This argument is obviously fallacious, because it conflates "cause" with "action." Although there was no action before Creation, nevertheless God's nature and counsel, being eternal, preceded the first action. Scripture explicitly speaks of God's counsel existing "before the foundation of the Earth." (Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, ...

Odeliya had asked for a link to Plantinga’s article “Advice to Christian Philosophers”. It contains some great stuff on determinism, but its value goes far beyond that. Enjoy!!! http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth10.html

When I first started learning about Arminianism , I didn't know who I should read. There wasn't much out there at that time and I didn't know where to go, so I just read Arminius himself. That was hard. He's very good, but I could have used an introduction first. Here's a few books I have read over the years, and if I had to do it over again, I would have read them in this order: Intro to Arminianism - Just Getting Started 1. Arminian Theology - Myths and Realities by Rodger Olsen Great at explaining what Arminians believe and don't believe. 2. Life in the Son by Robert Shank Excellent Exegeses of most passages dealing with falling from grace. 3. Free Grace a sermon by John Wesley Gives a short critique of Calvinism. Intermediate Arminianism - Putting the Pieces Together 4. Why I am not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joe Dongell Strong systematic approach and solid Arminian reasoning. 5. Elect in the Son by Robert Shank A case for corporate election....

For anyone who might have been following the debate I was having on triablogue here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/arminian-perspectives.html and more recently here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/libertarian-free-will-and-total.html The venue has moved to turretinfan's site, as he seems to be the main person responding at this point. Here's his site: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/11/quick-response-to-godismyjudge.html and my most recent response: Dear TF, I am glad we can agree that divided senses shift as the topic shifts. I wonder if “ability to choose freely” could have a divided sense, but maybe it can. My concern is if it could have one, would that divided sense be of any use to you? One of the reasons I wonder this is because compatiblism and division seem at odds. That’s why I have been asking you (and Gene and Sinner Saint) for one. So I will gladly take you up on your offer to elaborate, using my necessary/sufficient distinction or anything els...

testing ways to organize tags into a tables of contents 1 PROLOG, 2 GOD, 3 CREATION, 4 PROVIDENCE, 5 PREDESTINATION, 6 THE LAW, 7 THE GOSPEL, 8 SOTERIOLOGY , 8.a Conditional Election, 8.b Depravity, 8.c Christ's death, 8.d Resistible Grace, 8.e Perseverance, 9 THE CHURCH, 20 HISTORY, 30 DEBATES, 40 COWBOYS, 99 ABOUT ME