Dan Chapa

This post is a response to Scott Christensen’s article “Prevenient Grace and Semi-Pelagianism”. ( link ) One of the main aspects of Mr. Christensen’s article is calling Arminians Semi-Pelagian. Pelagius was a heretic condemned by the early church for teaching man does not need God’s grace to repent and believe. Semi-Pelagianism (a watered down form of Pelagianism which might be characterized as God helps those who help themselves) was likewise condemned by the early church. So calling someone Semi-Pelagian is serious and unwelcome. It’s the mirror image of calling someone a hyper-Calvinist. Both “Semi-Pelagian” and “hyper-Calvinist” are pejorative terms. Worse real Semi-Pelagians and hyper-Calvinists exist, so one does not want to get lumped in with those crowds. So this post will defend Arminianism from the charge by defining Semi-Pelagianism, addressing arguments that Total Depravity is undone by Prevenient Grace, that free will procures God’s grace, that Libertarian Free will acts...

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...

Article two of the traditional understanding of the SBC view of God's plan of salvation ( link ) has been called Semi-Pelagian   here ,  here  and  here .  What is semi-Pelagianism?  The short answer is the denial that we need grace in order to believe in Christ.  The longer answer is that semi-Pelagianism is probably best defined in the Cannons of Orange (529AD) that condemned the view. ( link )  Here's the article that gets accused of Semi-Pelagianism: Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any perso...

A large group of Southern Baptists recently signed a statement that defines their beliefs and opposes Calvinism. ( link ) It takes the name “Traditionalist” which ruffles feathers with Calvinists in the SBC, but at least provides a helpful title other than non-Calvinist. Overall, this may help slow the spread of Calvinism within the SBC by putting names and faces to the opposition to Calvinism and providing an alternative. So overall I think the move is helpful and a good thing. However, I find my own understanding of scripture somewhere in between this traditionalist statement and Calvinism. For example, Article 2’s statement says: “ We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned .” I do hold that we were condemned in Adam. The denial of “incapacitation” was carelessly worded but based certain statements about the need for grace through the rest of the document; I will give the trad...

Chrysostom makes a great point. John 6:45 really helps explain John 6:37 and 44. God teaches and we learn, if we choose to, but some choose not to learn. Those that learn from the Father are the Father's. ( John 17:6 ) The Father gives those that learn to the Son. Here are the passages and Chrysostom's comments [emphasis mine]: John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and him that comes to Me I will in nowise cast out. But perhaps some one will say, If all that the Father gives, and whomsoever He shall draw, comes unto You, if none can come unto You except it be given him from above, then those to whom the Father gives not are free from any blame or charges. These are mere words and pretenses. For we require our own deliberate choice also, because whether we will be taught is a matter of choice , and also whether we will believe. And in this place, by the which the Father gives Me, He declares nothing else than that the believing on Me is no ordinary thing, nor ...

The purpose of this post is to define Arminian soteriology. Arminianism in general is the views of James Arminius. Of course, Arminius’ views span more then just salvation. They include the freewill of man, God’s providence, the entrance of sin into the world and foreknowledge. This post is specific to the topic of salvation. Arminian soteriology has been variously defined ranging from any non-Calvinist viewpoint to all views that teach falling from grace (a view Arminius didn’t hold). So how shall we define Arminianism? I suggest we look to the past for clarity. In order to define Arminian soteriology we must look back to the historic Calvinist/Arminian debate. Arminianism was debated hotly during James Arminius’ life. After his death in 1609, his followers summarized his views into five points in 1610. These views were debated up until the Synod of Dort in 1619. The Synod issued the Cannons of Dort, which were organized into five points; the five points of Calvinism. Here is a table ...

John Wesley had the rare gift of bringing the Calvinist/Arminian debate from the head to the heart. In Predestination Calmly Considered, Wesley first examines the idea of upholding unconditional election while rejecting reprobation and then explains why the two doctrines are inseparable. He then rejects reprobation as inconsistent with the whole scope and tenor both of the Old and New Testament and provides about four pages of scriptural quotations to demonstrate his point. He then shows that reprobation is inconsistent with God’s justice and explains Romans 9. Wesley then moves to the atonement and shows Christ died for all based on a few passages and based on the general offer of the gospel. He then explains that man is dependent on prevenient grace and that even though man has freewill, God gets all the glory. He then explains why a system that includes freewill glorifies God more than a system with reprobation, based on God’s wisdom, justice and love. Wesley then explains co...

Charles Cameron’s article, “Arminius―Hero or Heretic?” explains that James Arminius comes as a bit of a surprise to both Calvinists and Arminians today, as he is closer to Calvinism than people expect. Cameron starts with some preliminaries about Arminius (his affinity for Calvin’s commentaries, his approach to reconciling differences and his commitment to scripture) and then dives into the 5 points of Calvinism. On Total Depravity, Cameron notes Arminius’ focus on grace, not freewill. On Election, Arminius teaches a Christocentric, evangelical, eternal, decree whereby God chooses to save believers. Cameron questions the “from eternity” and “based on foreknowledge” aspect of Arminius’ explanation of election. On the Atonement, Arminius avoids universalism, but advocates God’s universal love and the availability of forgiveness for all. On Grace, Arminius avoids deterministic necessity, but affirms man’s dependence on God’s grace. On Perseverance, Cameron notes that Arminius does n...

Ever wonder what the differences between Pelagians , semi- Pelagians , Arminians , sub- lapsarians and supra- lapsarians are? These terms often get thrown around, and people sometimes get mad when they are labeled in one group or another. The best way I can explain these differences is through a little analogy. Imagine two guys, George and Matt, are in a boat. George represents God, and Matt represents man. (Some people may have figured out that I used "G" & "M", because my memory is bad.) Pelagians George & Matt are rowing along. Matt falls out and goes under for a bit. He comes up and thrashes around, confused and scared. George calls out, I am over here. Matt sees George, swims over to the boat, and climbs in. In Pelagianism , all that man needs in order to be saved is for God to call them through the Gospel. Then man is able on his own to respond and save himself. Semi- Pelagians George & Matt are rowing along. Matt falls out and goes under for ...

second half A PROLOG, B GOD, C CREATION, D PROVIDENCE, E PREDESTINATION, F THE LAW, G THE GOSPEL, H SOTERIOLOGY, H.1 Conditional Election, H.2 Depravity, H.3 Christ's death, H.4 Resistible Grace, H.5 Perseverance, I THE CHURCH, W HISTORY, X DEBATES, Y COWBOYS, Z ABOUT ME

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Both can't be true at the same time. Compatiblism is the idea that determinism is compatible with human freedom. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens had a preceding cause such that it necessarily happens and the opposite cannot happen. Freedom (as compatiblists explain it) is freedom from compulsion. IE no one is forcing you to do something you don't want to do. You are able to act according to your strongest desire. However you are unable to act contrary to your strongest desire. And that desire comes from our nature and our nature comes in part from God's creating us the way He did and in part from God putting us in the circumstances He does, and in no part from us as an indeterministic cause of our actions. Arminianism is both a philosophical and a soterialogical system. As a philosophical system, it embraces libertarian free will and denies determinism outright. This can be seen clearly from the writings of it...