Dan Chapa

One of the clearest passages in scripture teaching Christ came to save each and every person is John 12:46-48: I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.  And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world .  He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. Notice a few things about world.  First, Christ comes "into" the world. You go into a place, in this case Christ went into the planet earth. And who on earth will be judged one day?  Each and every person who ever lived on earth.  So who did Christ come to save?  Every person who has ever lived on the earth,  including those who rejected Him and will be judged on the last day.  One of the key issues in the limited/unlimited atonement debate is God's intention, plan and d...

Calvinist often site Hebrews 10:14 as teaching limited/definitive atonement. Specifically, the perfect tense of “has perfected” indicates our perfecting took place in the past – it’s settled and done with, though it has lasting results into the future. Of course, this leads to questions like are we born justified, and also, if we are already perfect, why are we being sanctified? But rather than critiquing the Calvinist view, I would like to focus on alternative explanations. For years, I held this passage references three time frames: three events. Here’s what it looks like as a timeline: First is the cross, which is the offering whereby Christ supplied the provision – the only basis for salvation. This is the “by one offering”. The third event is happening while the book of Hebrews is written; the sanctification of the believers. This is referenced by “are being sanctified”. In between is a second, implicit event; the conversion of the people spoken of in Hebrews; the ...

The Canons of Dort say Christ acquired faith for us by His death ( Point 2, article 8 ). 1  The significance of this seemly minor point is that Christ buying the condition of the covenant effectively changes the covenant from conditional to unconditional. Christ buying faith links the provision and application of Christ’s blood – ensuring the provision and application are co-extensive. When the bible says Christ bought us or redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, it’s talking about penal substitution. God’s law and justice demand the punishment of sinners, so we were lawbreakers and under a sentence of death. Christ redeems us by penal substitution – He satisfies justice by His death. The same cannot be said for faith. The bible never says Christ bought or redeemed faith. Does faith need to be rescued? Is faith a lawbreaker and under a sentence of death? It’s not like the bible speaks of Christ’s death overcoming some obstacle to God’s giving ...

John 3:16 is one of the most well known and loved passages in the bible - because it summarize the Gospel so nicely. Some Calvinists limit "world" from meaning everyone, but many Calvinists do see that John 3:16 is about everyone. 1  That is to say, they agree that God has a general love for all mankind that moved Him to send His Son.  But they stop there, just short of saying God intends to apply the work of His Son to each and every person to save all.  But don't forget verse 17: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. God's purpose in sending His Son was so that the world [each and every individual], through Christ Jesus, might be saved.  Contra Dort's claim that: " it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he c...

I was recently pointed to Dr. DeHaan’s teaching on Christ’s blood.   ( link )   Laced into his views of original sin, the virgin birth and the incarnation are the ideas that human blood is sinful and Christ’s blood was not human. Dr. DeHaan states:   While all men from Adam to this day are born with Adam’s sinful nature, and, therefore, are subject to the curse and eternal death, the Man Jesus was without sin and, therefore, DEATHLESS until He took the sin of others upon Himself and died THEIR death. Now while Jesus was of Adam's race according to the flesh yet He did not inherit Adam's nature. This alone will prove that sin is not transmitted through the flesh. It is transmitted through the blood and not the flesh, and even though Jesus was of the "Seed of David according to the flesh" this could not make him a sinner. Jesus Christ died.  He died others death in the sense of the death they deserved, not in the sense of their physical death.  Further, ...

I recently reviewed what the Church Fathers had to say on the atonement and was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. They often said things that support my understanding of the atonement - penal substitution. Penal substitution is the idea that sin we broke God's law, His justice demanded that we be punished, and Christ satisfied God's justice by a substitutionary penalty. Sometimes this idea is fairly explicit in the Fathers. In particular, I found Eusebius' statement that in OT sacrifices, animals were slain in the place of men, prefiguring what Christ would do, as a very powerful affirmation of penal substitution. Clearly, the OT sacrifices were offered to God, not Satan, so if you view the sacrifices as penal substitutions, you are basically there. The other person that stood out to me was Theodore Abucara, who plainly taught penal substitution. While he was pre-reformation, he is probably too late to be considered a church father. Beyond Eusebius and Abucara, the ...

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...

Turretinfan responded on Calvinism and determinism here . TF: That we are not the reason God chooses us has nothing to do with determinism. I think most folks would disagree with this statement, but I will let them decide that and won’t argue this point further. TF: No. As I already said, "actual sufficiency" has to do with intrinsic value. To build on the Scriptural analogy of redemption with a price, the price of Christ's death was enough to save an infinite number of people. This explanation wouldn’t be an issue if Calvinists only said the value of Christ’s death was sufficient for all. But they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all [meaning the value of Christ’s death was sufficient for all], while in the background, other aspects of Christ’s death move against Christ’s death being sufficient for all. Granted, these other aspects don’t “block” the value of Christ’s death from saving, but perhaps they make use of the value of Christ’s death in such a way that th...

Theojunkie responded to my recent post on Calvinism and Determinism . He provided 4 corrections, but I don’t think I misrepresented Calvinism. I explained Calvinism as I understand it; but perhaps I have some things to learn about Calvinism. Still, I can’t help but think it’s likely I simply highlighted aspects of Calvinism, which, although they are not often discussed, they are non-the-less true of Calvinism. Limited Atonement Me: Christ's death was sufficient for all meaning if He had died for the reprobate, He could have been able to save them. The "possibility" of salvation is based on a different past then the actual past - a hallmark of determinism. TJ: Correction: If Christ had died for the reprobate, then 1) they would with certainty be saved, and 2) they would not be reprobate. Salvation is not "possible" for anybody-- it is certain. No where does the bible speak of the "possibility of being saved". No where does anyone in the ...

Mitch and I have been discussing 1 John 2:1-2. Some of the mistakes Mitch makes are common ones I see in Calvinists circles, so I thought I would address them. The Text 1Jo 2:1-2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Mitch’s View 1. The whole world = meaning all Christians throughout who ever were, are or will be 2. “you” = the Jews 3. propitiation and advocation and are inseparable and co-extensive 4. Propitiation means “has propitiated” My View 1. The whole world = everyone 2. Christ is the propitiation for everyone, but only advocates for believers 3. Propitiation is the only basis for advocation, but they are not inseparable or co-extensive 4. Since Christ is the propitiation for everyone, He can cleanse everyone 5...

This post is a follow on to Turretinfan’s comments here and here . Calvinists, in the Synod of Dordt, said that Christ’s death is sufficient for all. But they also say Christ’s death paid for this many, no more. But this is inconsistent. If Christ’s death didn’t pay for someone, in what sense is it sufficient for them? TF states: God has shown favor on some of mankind. He has provided for them His Son's blood - blood of infinite intrinsic efficacy. Yes, the blood WILL not do the reprobate any eternal good, but it WOULD do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sin and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, it WOULD do the reprobate good if Christ had offered it for the reprobate, in short it WOULD work for the purpose of expiating the sins of the reprobate if it were applied to that use. Let’s look at this first portion: Christ’s blood would do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sins and believed. That sounds good to me. If the Calvinist could consi...

This post is a continuation of my discussion with Turretinfan. Tfan had asked: How is purchasing a redemption for both believers and non-believers consistent with decreeing to save only believers? ( here ) To which I had responded: 1) the decree to save believers should not be understood as foreknowledge of individual believers (i.e. Sue and John, but not Robbie), but rather the formula that anyone who believes shall be saved 2) that decree was preceded by a decree that Christ, by His death, shall be the basis of salvation (this decree can't be limited to the elect, because is explanatorily prior to the decree of election) 3) the decree regarding Christ's death means salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death (here ) Turretinfan replied here . I will quote his most relevant portions in italics and provide my responses. since the first decree [that Christ should die, making men savable] does not include any decree for application of the benefit of Chris...

Turretinfan recently made this comment and asked a question, here . Today, in fact only a few minutes ago, I found this interesting discussion, from which - for the moment - I've excerpted only the name: When [this man] was charged with teaching, Christ has died for all men and for every individual, he responded, "This assertion was never made by me either in public or private except when it was accompanied by such an explanation as the controversies which are excited on this subject have rendered necessary. "For the phrase here used possesses much ambiguity: Thus it may mean either that 'the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one,' or that 'the redemption, which was obtained by means of that price, is applied and communicated to all men and to every one' . . . Of this latter sentiment I entirely disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved that believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption . . ....

I started working on the Atonement by going over John Owen's theory on the atonement, looking at what I thought was the weak link, namely the difference between Christ's death and His intercession . For more, see the tag the death of death in the death of Christ. Recently, I went through the top 10 reasons why Christ died for everyone. There's a tag on that as well. What I plan on doing next is in at least two parts. I want to review Owen's arguments against unlimited atonement and I also want to go over theories for explaining unlimited atonement. Whelp, that's the plan, Lord willing.

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....

Interesting article on a Puritan who held to Universal Atonement. http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2007/12/john-goodwin-a.html

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

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. What a wonderful passage. God through Christ was reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them. Hard to explain if you don't think Christ died for everyone. But many Calvinists say that the world only means the elect. They are quick to point out if there sins aren't counted against them, and if they are reconciled to God, then they are saved. So the world must mean only the elect. Hum...