Dan Chapa

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...

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...

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,...

Being associated with the Pharisees is normally unflattering.  But considering Paul was originally a Pharisee, it's important to understand what they believed.  And they maintained God's providential control and man's freedom in a way only Molinists today can.  Here's how Josephus described the Pharisees view: 3. Now, for the Pharisees, ... when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although f...

Eddy Nahmias, Stephen Morris, Thomas Nadelhoffer, and Jason Turner conducted a survey on free will. [i]   They argue these studies suggest that ordinary people’s pre-theoretical intuitions about free will and responsibility do not support incompatibilism.   It appears to be false—or certainly too hasty—to claim that ‘‘most ordinary persons. . . believe there is some kind of conflict between freedom and determinism’’ (Kane, 1999, p. 218 ).   In this post, I am going to dispute their interpretations of the results of their study.   The surveyors only present the results of a doubly revamped survey in their paper.   Of the first round they say: “ In some initial surveys we found that people do not understand the concept ‘determinism’ in the technical way philosophers use it. Rather, they tend to define ‘determinism’ in contrast with free will .” (565)   Likewise they report “ Examples of participants’ definitions of ‘determinism’ include: ‘‘Being unable...

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...

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...

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 compone...

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...

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 t...

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 t...