Dan Chapa

Below are two recent exchanges I had with Paul Manata and Ron Di Gacomo on foreknowledge and freedom; specifically the argument from the necessity of the past. In both I argued that the classic argument based on the necessity of the past conflates truths and the basis of truth; there's a difference between me and propositions about me. In Paul's case I asked him to try to reformulate the argument, but he declined. In Ron's case I tried to reformulate the argument for him and he rejected my reformulation. Either way, these exchanges lead me to be more convinced of my hunch that the classic formulation is a train wreck in light of the distinction between truth and the basis of truth. I will be in blue; Paul and Ron in red. Exchange with Paul: The ability to do ~A being consistent with God's forebelief that you will A strikes me as obviously false given the foreknowledge argument. In the least, that's what is up for debate. Apparently, what you mean is that you hav...

Dr. White graciously took the time to respond to one of my posts where I commented on his critique of middle knowledge. ( link ) The discussion is in the first part of the broadcast. I had argued that Dr. White's positions that Molinism undermines both LFW and God's sovereignty were inconsistent. Dr. White responds that I misrepresented his arguments and it's possible for a system to have more than one problem. It's true that I didn't quote Dr. White's comments in their entirety, but I did link to them. But what I did say I believe to be both relevant and accurate. As for systems being able to have more than one problem; I agree. But only if you draw out contradictory premises from inside a system, can you validly assert a contradiction. If one or both of the premises are unacceptable to your opponent and outside their system; they have every right to point out that your assertions are inconsistent. Thus Mark notes about Christ's trial: many bare ...

Calvinist Greg Welty states: Clearly then, the controversy between Calvinists and non-Calvinists over unconditional election is not the Calvinists’ assertion that God elects some for salvation, since non-Calvinists believe this too. Rather, the controversy is over the Calvinists’ negative claim , namely, the denial that divine election unto salvation is on the basis of works or foreseen faith. ( link ) It's interesting to me that while Calvinists are not united on the doctrine of election; they all agree Arminianism is wrong. So as opposed to formulating the doctrine of election in a positive assertion unique to Calvinism, they simply deny the Arminian view of foreseen faith. This has it's roots in the supra vs. sub lapsarian controversy. If they all agreed that God choose from among pre-fallen man or post-fallen man they could form such a positive assertion. But since they disagree on this point, they go with the enemy of my enemy approach and target Arminianism. The problem...

Apparently there's a new blogger claiming Calvinism is heresy. http://tothegloryofchristsgrace.blogspot.com/ This individual is just as off based as Outside the Camp; the hyper-Calvinist group who thinks Arminianism is heresy. His post indicates he thinks I am condemned because I don't think of Calvinism as heresy. Well he's not alone. Muslim's think I am condemned because I don't submit to Allah. Trent says I am condemned because I hold to justification by faith. Outside the camp thinks I am condemned because I am an Arminian. In times like this, where oh where can I turn... except to Jesus Christ and Him alone. As a matter of historical record: Dort doesn’t anathematize Arminianism and the Arminian Confession doesn’t anathematize Calvinism.

Two recent posts I read got me thinking about reductio ad absurdum arguments. Luke at Voice of the Lamb explains that he used to be an Arminian, and while he was he held to a distorted view of Calvinism. Calvinism was repeatedly misrepresented and mangled. Later in life he studied Calvinism from primary sources and came to very different conclusions about Calvinism, and eventually accepted it. Luke then describes one of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism in the area of depravity. This is of course a misrepresentation of Arminianism, as both Arminians and Calvinist hold that man is totally depraved. A commenter on Luke’s blog pointed this out and Luke stated his representation of Arminian was based on his view of the logical conclusions following from Arminianism. ( link ) The second post that caught my eye was by Turretinfan. Apparently George Bryson challenged James White to a debate regarding: does Calvin or Calvinism teach that God is the cause (by virtue of Hi...

Strange Baptist Fire contends that Moral Government Theology (MGT) is linked to A) denying original sin, B) denying total depravity, C) denying penal substitution in the atonement and D) affirming open theism. ( link ) and ( link ) First off, I don’t hold to MGT, even though I appreciate the point it makes. So in the big picture, I suppose I agree with Strange Baptist Fire. Additionally, I appreciate the fact that Strange Baptist Fire digs into source materials to discover Arminius and Wesley’s views on original sin, depravity, the atonement and God’s foreknowledge. However, except for point “C”, I don’t see the relationship between MGT and denying original sin, depravity and also affirming open theism. Hugo Grotius was perhaps the first to articulate MGT and he was a remonstrant. He held to the five points of the remonstrants , which affirm original sin, total depravity and God’s foreknowledge. So if the founder of MGT didn’t commit the errors that Strange Baptist Fire says are ...

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

Recently I asked Turretinfan if he would be interested in a debate on the correct interpretation of Romans 9. This came about through an aritcle I wrote on Romans 9 about 5 years ago. Here’s a link: http://www.geocities.com/freewilltheology/romans9.html Turretinfan mentioned he objected to practically every aspect of my interpretation, but we haven’t had an opportunity to go through the passage together. So I figured this would be a good way to do so. I have proposed some rules as to how to approach the debate and asked him to take a shot at the resolution. We will see where this goes.