Dan Chapa

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...

I was recently told that I was misrepresenting Calvinism when I said they interpret Romans 9 to mean God hated Esau before he was born or did anything evil.  However, this is exactly what Calvin said: 11. We come now to the reprobate, to whom the Apostle at the same time refers ( Rom. 9:13 ). For as Jacob, who as yet had merited nothing by good works, is assumed into favor; s o Esau, while as yet unpolluted by any crime, is hated . If we turn our view to works, we do injustice to the Apostle, as if he had failed to see the very thing which is clear to us. Moreover, there is complete proof of his not having seen it, since he expressly insists that when as yet they had done neither good nor evil, the one was elected, the other rejected, in order to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works. Then after starting the objection, Is God unjust? instead of employing what would have been the surest and plainest defense of his justice—viz. that God had recomp...

Last night I discussed unconditional election with a few friendly Calvinists.  For the most part, they picked the texts we discussed in their making a case for unconditional election (i.e. we didn’t discuss 1 Timothy 2:4-6 or the like). While rehashing the whole discussion isn’t possible I wanted to at least summarize the major points of disagreement on each text we discussed at length. Matthew 11:20-30 20  Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 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 be...

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...

Many Calvinists argue that if conversion is free in a libertarian sense, then we have some role in if we end up saved or not, an so we get some credit for ending up saved.  Now the simplest line of response is we play a role in believing, but not in salvation.  Believing does not save and believers would still go to hell, were it not for God's mercy. However, the lingering problem is that given God's decision, to save believers and offer of salvation, God obligates Himself to save believers.  Given this covenant, God should save believers and it would be morally wrong not to.  Consider Hebrews 6: 13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself,14 saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” 15 And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. 16 For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17 So when G...

In James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom 1 , he argues for unconditional election based on Romans 8:28-30.   Here's the passage:   Romans 8:28-30: And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. One of the key questions is the meaning of the word foreknow (proginosko).  James White says that foreknowledge means “ chooses to enter into a relationship with ”.  He supports this view by arguing that to determine the meaning of the Greek term proginosko, we should primarily use passages where God is the subject and the object is personal (such as Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:20).  He argues “ Obviou...

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...

Calvinist's often say the objections in Romans 9 don't make sense unless Paul is talking about unconditional election on individuals to salvation.   But Steve Hays provides some decent examples of why they still make sense if Paul is talking about God's plan to save by grace (rather than works or nationality). ( link )  Romans 9 is about God's sovereignty , one way or another. 

Angels had a one shot deal - unlike man, they don’t have plan of salvation. Mankind on the other hand had two chances to be with God forever – the garden and the gospel. Infra-lapsarians place a lot of weight on Adam’s fall – the fall is the reason any man is reprobated 1 . Thus infra-lapsarians see God as a just judge in reprobating sinners. But what carries this weight in the case of reprobate Angels? It would seem justice cannot play the vital role in their reprobation that it does in the case of mankind, if it can play any role at all. And thus with respect to God’s character, they lose whatever ground they might have gained via going with infra-lapsarianism over supra-lapsarianism. 1 Reprobation may be understood as either passed over and not elected or actively reprobated. Infra-lapsarians tend to describe reprobation in terms of being passed over, but some infras do hold to double predestination. Infra-lapsarians say the reason anyone is reprobated at all is due to their fall...

How does Francis Turretin respond to the fact that in Romans 9:11 Paul quotes from Genesis 25:23 wherein the election of Jacob and Esau related to national blessings, rather than individual salvation? " The answer is although that announcement may be extended to the posterity also (Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:3) and, in the historical sense, may be referred to the blessing or external appointment to dominion or servitude, still this does not hinder it from being referred ( in a mystical sense ) properly to election and reprobation with respect to the fathers themselves ." (Turretin.  Institutes of Elenctiv Theology, Vol. 1, Topic 4, Q 14, XIX, p. 385)  I agree that Paul was using the OT examples of Jacob and Esau to teach more than national election. But I think pointing out that in the OT the passages were national does a lot to blunt the idea that Romans 9 is obviously Calvinistic. Turretin has to retreat to a mystical sense, which inherently seems more prone to be open to a range ...

Arminians typically emphasize the foreknowledge aspect of 1 Peter 1:2, but there is another aspect that's even more supportive of conditional election. Infra-lapsarian Calvinists typically view election as among the unsanctified but the passage teaches us that we are chosen through (or 'by' or 'in') sanctification of the Spirit. Here's the passage: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit , to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, be multiplied. The phrase 'through sanctification of the Spirit' modifies 'elect'. Sanctification is the means, not the goal of election (i.e. we are not chosen to become sanctified, rather we are chosen through sanctification). The Holy Spirit produces obedient faith in us and through His work we become the elect.

Calvinist sometimes see Paul’s objector in Romans 9:19 as an Arminian. After all, wouldn’t Arminius ask Calvin why does He yet find fault ? But on the other hand, Arminius doesn’t believe God’s will is irresistible. It’s Calvin who asks Arminius who has resisted His will ? But wait, Calvin is OK with finding fault men even though their actions are predetermined by God and wouldn't aks why God still finds fault. So the objector was half Calvinist, half Arminian.  Was he a Calminian? No, Paul’s Jewish objector impiously asked for exemption from blame since God had the authority to save via works of the law rather than faith.

Calvinist find a hint of unconditionally in the phrase "accord­ing to the good pleasure of His will". If God is calling the shots, with respect to us it must be random. Arminians need not understand the phrase along those lines. This just means God's plans are wise and good and in accordance with His Holiness, Justice and Goodness.

James White recently discussed Matthew 23:37 on Radio Free Geneva in response to Dr. Norman Geisler's book Chosen but Free. Here's the passage. Matthew 23:37-39 states: 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 willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’” James White uses the difference between 'Jerusalem' and 'your children' to argue that Jerusalem represents the Jewish leadership while Jerusalem's children are the Jewish people.

In Brian Abasciano's article Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election, he explains that corporate election is primarily corporate and secondarily individual, but it’s a mistake to think of corporate election to the exclusion of the individual. In corporate election, the election of the group is a consequence of the election of the corporate head and representative. Thus the nation of Israel is chosen in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and believers are chosen in Christ. Just as in OT times, individuals were free to join or leave the group, so also, in the new covenant, individuals are free to join or leave. Next, Brian deals with misconceptions about Corporate Election. He addresses the misconception that Corporate Election Excludes Individuals by pointing out that although election is primarily corporate, it's secondarily individual. This misconception is cleared up primarily by reviewing the definition and explanation of corporate election. Brian addresses the miscon...

Calvinists generally face the issue of God punishing people for acts that they cannot avoid, since Calvinists deny libertarian free will and maintain we cannot do otherwise than what God has decreed for us to do, but supra-lapsarianism faces two additional issues: 1) God reprobates certain men for some reason other than their sins and 2) God necessitates the fall of mankind in order to accomplish election and reprobation. Supra-lapsarians believe that in the order of decrees ( which is a logical ordering of God’s plan from eternity, rather than a temporal order of the execution of His plan in time) election and reprobation come before the fall. In this sense the fall and sin are not the reasons God reprobates. So supra-lapsarians hold that God reprobates for some reason other than sin. After God has reprobated, He needs man to sin and be in a fallen condition, so He decrees the fall to accomplishing reprobation. Infra-lapsarians avoid these two issues by saying that in the logical or...

Marcus was kind enough to read and respond to my post on Ephesians 1 . While his response covers a wide range of topics, D.V. I will restrict my response to the key topic: election in Christ. Marcus: Did God predestine us or did he predestine the plan of salvation? God predestined us not a plan. Does a plan get adopted like children? Does a plan get seated in heaven? This indirectly get’s at the key issue of understanding ‘in Christ’. The answer to your first question is both. God does choose us but He also chose and predestined to save through the Gospel. John 3:16, 1 Cor 1:21 especially in light of 1 Cor 2:7. So the next question is naturally, is the Gospel the foundation of our election or is our election the foundation of the Gospel. In other words, does God first say ‘I want to glorify these people’ and then say ‘to do so I will use Christ, the cross and their union to Christ through faith’ or on the other hand does he first say ‘Christ is the foundation of Gospel through th...

Romans 9:1-6 Romans 9:7-9 Romans 9:10-13 Romans 9:14-18 Romans 9:19-23 Romans 9:24-33 Connection between 9, 10 and 11 Romans 10 Romans 11:1-6 Romans 11:7-12 Romans 11:13-15 Romans 11:16-24 Romans 11:25-33 Romans 9-11 Conclusion

Conclusion So in conclusion, Paul is teaching how the doctrine of justification by faith is impacting both Jews and Gentiles. He reconciles justification by faith and the rejection of the Jews who do not believe with the promises God gave Israel. Israel is chosen and blessed, but with national blessings. The spiritual Israel consists of believers in Christ. Both of these truths are taught through God’s choice of the patriarchs. And both illustrate how God’s promises did not fail, even though unbelieving Israelites are rejected.