Dan Chapa

http://theojunkie.blogspot.com/ has been removed. I wonder why. Long ago, Theojunkie and I used to discuss Calvinism on crosswalk.com. Now Theojunkie might not be as read up on philosophy as Paul Manata, as knowledgeable of the church fathers as Turretinfan or as rhetorically effective as Steve Hays, but he did have some rare strengths. First, he always kept the big picture in view, we didn't debate details for the sake of it, we only ever got into the weeds as it related to the big picture. Second, he has a very logical mind. Third, Theojunkie didn't use strawman arguments, nor did he "sell to the crowd". If you were talking theology with Theojunkie, it was a legit conversation. Fourth and most importantly, Theojunkie is passionate, sincere and very kind Christian. Finally, he has a good sense of humor. I will miss Theojunkie’s blog.

Here's a recap of a debate I had with Theojunkie and Turretinfan on Calvinism and determinism. The debate cover all kinds of topics, like determinism and Molinism but one aspect that we kept coming back to was Christ's death and determinism. Here's some key quotes and links to the posts: Opening Argument: Calvinism is Determinism - A brief review of TULIP in light of Determinism 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. Theojunkie Response 1 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 bible present the Gospel as a "possibilit...

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 ...

Theojunkie responded to my post: which comes first, faith or regeneration ? His response focused on John 1:12-13 , which states: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. TJ’s explanation seems to be: A. giving “the right to become children of God” doesn’t refer to regeneration, but rather either adoption or sanctification. B. The fact that we are born of God’s will, not man’s, means regeneration precedes faith, because faith involves man’s will. C. “Receiving Christ” is the start of “believing”, so there is no room in-between receiving Christ and believing for regeneration to take place. Even though adoption and birth are two alternative means of becoming sons and both birth and adoption are used to describe the blessings given us, we have good reason to suspect “A” is unsound. In this context “adoption”...

Theojunkie, a friendly levelheaded Calvinist, recently made an interesting comment about original sin: I doubt that you TRULY deny the federal headship of Adam (though your last sentence strongly suggests that you do). I think however that you misspoke, because just recently you stated that Arminians (yourself included) affirm the full reality (that is, the Reformed view) of Total Depravity in post-fall man. You stated that the difference between Reformed and Arminian theology does not lie in the doctrine of TD. Note that it is because of the federal headship of Adam that all men are naturally born into this condition of total depravity. ( context ) Some people explain original sin in that we would have done the same thing as Adam. I am not dogmatic about this, but I am inclined to disagree. Adam’s sin is foreign to us, but imputed to us. What we would have done (under compatiblist assumptions) seems to me to be an indictment of our character, not an imputation of somet...