Dan Chapa

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...

Recently, Scott Clark rescued an anti-Molinist quote by Voetius from the brink of oblivion. From the points which have been so far upheld against middle knowledge it is clear that the whole difficulty in the present controversy reduces to this one point: Could free conditioned things, from eternity indifferent by nature to futurition or nonfuturition, have passed over into the state of a future event otherwise than by the divine decree? This is the fundamental of fundamentals, on which the whole weight of the case rests. This is that postulate, which both we cannot concede to our adversaries and they cannot prove to us. …Middle knowledge is effective and congruous for any end by its nature. Upon it God is forced to wait in the wise framing of His decrees, which are bound to have a fixed result. The truth or falsity of future conditioned free ones is not known from their causes or from the divine decree, but from the actual occurrence of the thing. Before every act of His will God can s...

Benson’s comments on Proverbs 16:1 are short and sweet so here are his words: Proverbs 16:1 To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue. That is, in short, 1st, Man may purpose; he hath a freedom of thought and of will permitted him; he may form his projects, and lay his schemes as he thinks best; but, after all, 2d, God disposeth ; he easily can, and often does, cross man's purposes, and break his measures: nor can man proceed with success in any undertaking, nor carry into execution any design, without God's assistance and blessing. It was a curse that was prepared in Balaam's heart, but the answer of the tongue was a blessing.

The purpose of the post is to so demonstrate that Arminius taught that God had middle knowledge. Recently several authors, who are otherwise adherents to Arminian theology, have made claims that Arminius did not in fact teach middle knowledge. 1 I hope to demonstrate that Arminius taught that God had middle knowledge, and it was fundamental to his view on predestination and providence. Since the purpose of this paper is the clarification of Arminius’ views and not a defense of the doctrine itself, I will use far more quotes from Arminius than from scripture. What is Middle Knowledge? Middle knowledge is important in being able to explain the co-existence of God’s decrees and providence, and man’s freewill. Simply put, middle knowledge is the view that God knows that if X happen, Y would happen. Middle knowledge gets the name middle, because it is logically in-between two other types of knowledge. If comes after natural knowledge and before free knowledge. Natural knowledge is th...

The scriptures teach God's providence and man's choice. Molinism reconciles the two cleanly. In explaining scripture, Calvinism has to 'explain away' man's freedom and Simple Foreknowledge has to explain away God's providence. Consider Acts 4:28 and Matthew 23:37 : Acts 4:27-28 - “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. Calvinist - God planned the events leading up to Christ's crucifixion Molinist - God planned the events leading up to Christ's crucifixion Simple Foreknowledge - Only the crucifixion was planned, not the events leading up to it. Mt 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not wil...

Richard Watson's article on Omniscience (a part of his systematic theology) discusses God's knowledge and foreknowledge . Watson starts out by providing the scriptural passages indicating that God's knowledge is infinite. He then provides arguments from reason supporting God's infinite knowledge; namely, from God's being the First Cause, from His wisdom displayed in His works and finally from Greek philosophers who conclude God is omniscient based on the light of nature and express themselves well, so long as they expressed themselves generally, on this subject. Next Watson takes on the idea that God does not know our future choices; either because He doesn't choose to or because such foreknowledge implies a contradiction. Watson destroys this idea with scripture on prophecies of future choices and demonstrates what damage this does to God's providence. Then Watson reconciles God's foreknowledge with human freedom by pointing out the difference ...

In Jack Cottrell's article, Sovereignty and Free Will, he discusses the question: is there a logical incompatibility between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man? He points out that every detail may be included in God's decree without everything's being determined or effectuated by God. God decided to give man freedom; God has sovereignly and absolutely determined man's freedom, but not man's free acts. This is the way he planned it, decreed it, created it. God is in control, in that he is the creator and sustainer of all and that God controls the external circumstances of a man through his divine providence and he works within the heart through the Holy Spirit, but not to the point that man is left without choice. God works even to the point of opening or hardening the heart, yet without turning the will itself to one side or the other and always within the frame work of His foreknowledge.

Hodges' Argument Hodge argues that unless grace is resistible, the ultimate reason some believe and not others is found in us and not in God. Hodge says this would make believers better, more impressible or less obstinate than other. 1 Problem Non-Unique Personally, I find this one of the most powerful Calvinistic arguments. The idea that I can take credit for my salvation is intolerable, as is the idea that I am better than someone else. But the Calvinist solution is no solution, and it creates more problems than it resolves. Let’s take the argument that believers can take credit for their faith. But Calvinists also say people believe. Therefore Calvinism entails that people can take credit for their faith. It does not good for Calvinists to object that in Calvinism, grace is the sufficient cause of faith and in Arminianism, it is not. That doesn’t impact responsibility. In Calvinism, people are responsible for their actions, even though they are predetermined by sufficient caus...

In part 3, scections III.I , III.II , and III.III , Edwards argues against the link between LFW and responsibility by appealing to divine impeccability as well as judicial hardening. He argues if God cannot sin, and a hardened man cannot do good, neither has freewill. But God is still worthy of praise and the hardened sinner is still to blame. So praise and blame to not require freewill. The response is fairly straight forward. We agree that God cannot sin, and that sinners, without grace, cannot choose good. But does this mean that neither has LFW ? No. Recall that LFW does not mean the ability to choose between good and evil. ( link ) God chooses between good alternatives and sinners, without softening grace, choose between evil options. Divine Impeccability Imagine you dig $20 out of your couch cushion. With that $20 you could A) give it to church, or B) buy your mom flowers If you were impeccable, you could not C) buy drugs to get high. But you could still choose between th...

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....

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