Disconcurring TheoAmigos: Recent Episodes
disconcurringtheoamigos
Dan Chapa and Turretinfan debate Theology while remaining friends. We share a foundation in the essentials of the Christian faith and a love of God and His word. Here, we will dive deep into the Bible and present both Calvinism/Arminianism and the precise points of disconcurrance. Hopefully the contrast will bring clarity for you. Welcome to Disconcurring TheoAmigos!
Dan and Turretinfan discussion Isaiah 6:9-10 and how it is quoted in the New Testament. See Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, John 12:39-40, and Acts 28:27.
Dan and Turretinfan are joined by Bud to review the word kosmos/world and how it is used in the New Testament.
Dan and Turretinfan discuss limited atonement in preparation for Dan's upcoming debate.
Dan reviews Matt Slick's argument for Limited Atonement based on 1 Peter 2:24, which talks about the sin bearer.
Matt Slick debated Sam Shamoun on limited atonement. To prepare for his debate on the subject, Dan reviews Matt's arguments.
Vic Rockhill recently had a debate on 1 John 2:2. He joins Dan and Turretinfan to discuss 1 John 2:2 and propitiation.
Dan and Turretinfan discuss their debate with Eli and Charles on Free Grace. Specifically, they follow up on the argument that the Galatians stopped believing and remained saved.
In this episode, continued from a previous episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss the argument John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," Book III, Chapter III, Argument VI, in which Owen argues that one aspect of the atonement is that if Christ dies "for" someone, Christ dies as a "Sponsor" or "Surety" for that person.
Dan and Turretinfan discuss the double payment argument with respect to limited atonement.
In preparation for his debate in opposing limited atonement, Dan tries to articulate limited atonement and Turretinfan grades him.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss topics related to Free Grace theology in preparation for a 2 v 2 debate planned on May 20, 2023.
Dan goes over John 6, especially as it relates to total inability to believing in Jesus, step by step.
Dan is joined by Dr. Kurt Jaros to discuss, what, if anything, semi-Pelagianism is from a historical theology perspective.
Dan and Turretinfan respond to Leighton Flowers and Warren McGrew's comments on Dan's total depravity debate with Warren.
Dan and Turretinfan review Chapter 31 of Dillow's "Final Destiny," titled "The Tests of Fellowship"
David Louis joins to show to review Dan's debate with Warren MgGrew on Total Depravity.
Dan welcomes David Louis to discuss 2 Corinthians 3 & 4 and Veiling of the Truth. Dan and David planned to discuss why Satan puts a veil on a corpse, as well as whether people turn to the Lord before the veil is taken away.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan continue their review of the opening argument by Warren McGrew in his debate with Matt Slick over at The Gospel Truth.
Dan welcomes Chris Harris to the show and they discuss the coherence of of the compatibilism of determinism and free will. They discuss God's decrees and the compatibilist language in the 1689 London Baptist Confession.
Dan continues to look at arguments that libertarian free will (Libertarian Free Will) implies Pelagianism.
In this episode Dan and TurretinFan discuss Warren McGrew's opening argument from his debate with Matt Slick.
Dan and Turretinfan discuss philosophical arguments that libertarian free will implies Pelagianism.
In this episode Dan and TurretinFan comment on Ali Bonner's book, "The Myth of Pelagianism." Dr. Bonner is known for her work creating a critical edition of Pelagius' "Letter to Demetrias."
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss the Commentary on Romans that is attributed to Pelagius.
Dan and Turretinfan continue their review of McGrew's opening in his debate with JD Martin on Total Depravity on the Gospel Truth.
Dan and Turretinfan review Warren McGrew's opening on total depravity in his debate with JD Martin on The Gospel Truth. Here is a link to the original debate: https://www.youtube.com/live/SFCykbcICq8?feature=share
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan continue their discussion of the word "Justification" as it is found in Scripture.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss the Scripture that speaks of justification, keeping James 2 in mind.
Dan and TurretinFan discuss various topics in preparation for Dan Chapa's debate on James 2.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss the Re'em and its mistranslation as "Unicorn" in the King James Version.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss James 2 or possibly unicorns, either way for preparation for upcoming debates.
In this episode, we prepare TurretinFan for his upcoming debate with Pastor Anthony Aquino on the topic of Limited Atonement.
1 Corinthians 12:3 says “no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” Dr. Brian Abasciano summarizes why 1 Corinthians 12:3 teaches our need for God’s prevenient grace. He gives a quick overview of the context and text and explains why “by the Holy Spirit” is talking about the Holy Spirit’s personal, current and active role. He also explains why the declaration that Jesus is Lord is not limited to Spiritual sign gifts. This video is a summary. The longer discussion can be found here. https://youtu.be/zc7mg8Dm_MU This summary video was shot before Dr. Leighton Flower’s latest video. God willing, Dr. Abasciano will respond to that as well. Here’s a link to Dr. Flower’s latest video: https://www.youtube.com/live/WCE8nwvZbNc?feature=share
This episode is to show that 1 Corinthians 12:3, which says, no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit”, teaches our need for prevenient grace. Dan is joined by fellow Arminians - Dr. Brian Abasciano and Luke Gowdy to discuss the text and respond to Dr. Leighton Flowers. Dr. Flower’s video on 1 Corinthians 12:3 can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/live/XlZI040g-S0?feature=share
Dan and Turretinfan explore the connection between the warnings in Hebrews, especially chapters 3 & 4, with the rebellion in the wilderness in Numbers 14.
With special guest, David Lewis, Dan and TurretinFan discuss Provisionism and total depravity.
Derrick P.G. Behler asked some clarifying questions on the difference between Arminianism vs. Provisionism.
This episode is to go over the discussion on Tim Stratton's channel, Freethinking Ministries, between Leighton Flowers, Brian Abasciano, Dustin and Andrew on the difference between Provisionism and Arminianism on total depravity and prevenient grace. Dan is joined by fellow Arminians - Dr. Brian Abasciano, Andrew and Luke Gowdy. Here's a link to Tim Stratton's original video on Free Thinking Ministries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IKYi5q5Jmo&t=6071s
Dan and Turretinfan examine John Gill's commentary on the Hebrews 6 & 10 warnings and especially his test of genuine faith approach.
Dan and Turretinfan review Daniel Whedon's commentary on Hebrews 6 and especially the impossibility of restoring someone to repentance.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan continue their discussion of Eli Haitov's comments from his debate with J.D. Martin.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan continue their discussion of Eli Haitov's opening presentation on Free Grace from his debate with JD Martin.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan continue their review of Salvation Debate | Free Grace Theology or Lordship Salvation? || Eli Haitov vs. J.D. Martin
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan talk about recent debates, with a focus on TurretinFan's KJV debate.
In this episode, Dan and Turretinfan continue their review of Bob Wilkin's work on Free Grace Theology. Specifically, we look at Wilkin on the Parables of the Minas in Luke 10 and 10 Talents in Matthew 25.
In this 1,000 subscribers special episode, Dan and Turretinfan reminisce about how we got here and say thanks to all who listen.
In this episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss the topic of "Free Grace - Perseverance / Free Promises " in preparation for Dan's upcoming debate with Joshua Gibbs in January 2023.
In this episode, Dan and Turretinfan discuss 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, which is a go to text for Free Grace advocates. Specifically, we will look at the expression - If anyone’s work is burned up, it will be lost, but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire.
In this episode, we discuss Dan's recent debate with C Jay Cox on determinism. We especially get into Romans 9.
In this episode, I continue my response to Wilson's section on Origen in "Augustine's Conversion"
This is the second in a series of responses to Ken Wilson's comments regarding Origen in his book, "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will'"
God willing, there will be a multi-part response to Ken Wilson's claims regarding Origen in his book, "Augustine's Conversion" full title: "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will'"
In this episode, we plan to discuss the following citations provided at page 68 of Ken Wilson's book, "Augustine's Conversion ...":
Princ. 3.2.3
P. Arch. 3.1.14
Philoc. 25.2
One listener's description: "Just two OSAS arguing about whether you have to be good enough to prove you were OSASSED."
God willing, tomorrow I will debate Charles Jennings on the topic of Perseverance. In this episode, I discuss some of the issues.
In this episode, we continue our evaluation of Chapter 3, Section A of Ken Wilson's book, "Augustine's Conversion ....."
In this episode we consider the material bridging pp. 66-67 of Dr. Wilson's book, "Augustine's Conversion ...." It's a natural continuation from Episode 6, since we now look in more detail at Origen's Commentary on Romans, Book 4, Chapter 5, sections 1 and 3. We will also briefly consider Scheck's comments.
In this episode, we explore Dr. Wilson's characterization: "He admits some persons do relegate individual good behavior to unilateral divine infusion into the human 'will' -- the heretics who destroy free choice (P. Arch.3.1.5)"
In this episode, we examine Ken Wilson's analysis of Origen with respect to his claims regarding how Christians can earn higher honor and rewards (payment)
In this episode Dan and TurretinFan consider Origen's comments on Romans and more particular KW's claim: "Origen distinguishes grace from rewards. Christians earn rewards through their own efforts by availing themselves of God's grace, while grace itself (not good works or faith) is God's gift (Comm. Rom.4.4-5)." Kenneth Wilson, Augustine's Conversion ... , p. 66.
In this episode, Dan and Turretin Fan continue their discussion of the dispute between Arminius and Perkins.
In this episode, we examine a few more sentence of Ken Wilson's book, "Augustine's Conversion ...." This about the third episode or so on page 66 of his book.
Less than 500 years later (we're nothing if not timely), Dan and TurretinFan discuss the disagreement between Arminius and Perkins
Dan and Turretinfan discuss Prof. Orrick's book on Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the heart transplant.
This episode continues Turretinfan's Response to Ken Wilson's section on Origen in "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will'" (p. 66)
In this episode, I continue my response to Wilson's section on Origen in "Augustine's Conversion"
ἐκληρώθημεν (eklerothemen) in Ephesians 1:11 means obtain an inheritance, but comes from a word related to casting lots. Dan and Turretin Fan discuss this topic. (briefly)
In this episode of Conversations in Calvinism, Dan and TurretinFan Discuss Ephesians 1:4 and "Mere Calvinism" by Orrick
In this episode, Dan and Turretinfan discuss how belief in total depravity impacts evangelism.
In this Conversations in Calvinism episode, Dan and TurretinFan discuss Daniel Constantino v. Lucas Curcio "Perseverance of the Saints" Q&A on Hebrews 10:39 and John 15:2
This is the second in a series of responses to Ken Wilson's comments regarding Origen in his book, "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will'"
Dan and Turretinfan are joined by Colton Carlson to discuss Semi-Compatibilism, guidance control, reasons responsiveness, mechanism ownership, Frankfurt examples and more. This episode in part spawned out of the discussion of Michael Preciado's book on semi-compatibilism.
Dr. Jeff Riddle provided a lecture at the 2022, "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference. The video version is titled: "Lecture: Reasoning with the Wise and the Scribe" that video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBBCL_zLNVQ&t=0s
The second major lecture of the 2022 "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference featured a lengthy response by Dr. Riddle to Dr. Mark Ward's Article, "Which Textus Receptus?"
A response to the "Reasoning with Them That Believe" lecture by Dr. Jeff Riddle, from the 2022 "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference.
Pastor Christian McShaffrey discussed Christian apologetics from 1 Peter 3:15-16 and briefly touched on one particular point of interest.
Dan and Turretinfan discuss Dr. Preciado's view of semi-compatibilism. We plan to get into the subjects of defining determinism, the subjective condition of moral responsibility, the general ability to do otherwise and more.
During a recent debate, the topic of regeneration arose. It may be helpful to distinguish various senses of regeneration.
This is a response to a portion of Rev. Brett Mahlen's presentation, identified as a devotion, from the "Kept Pure in all Ages" Conference 2022 https://www.youtube.com/embed/fucQ7rG10SI
TurretinFan responded to Tim Stratton's opening comments from his discussion with Chris Date. Now Tim engages TurretinFan in an interactive dialog.
God willing, there will be a multi-part response to Ken Wilson's claims regarding Origen in his book, "Augustine's Conversion" full title: "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will'"
In this episode, we discuss Guillaume Bignon's statements related to Conditional Analysis of Freedom
Responding to Tim Stratton's Opening Speech from his interaction with Chris Date, which was characterized in terms of Calvinism (Chris Date) vs. Molinism (Tim Stratton)
Dan and Turretin Fan discuss some of the arguments in Tim Stratton and Chris Date on determinism and Molinism.
Historical Theology discussion of Semi-Pelagianism, with an emphasis on Pre-Reformation Theology
In his work, Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to "non-free Free Will" A Comprehensive Methodology, Wilson makes a number of rather odd claims. In this short video, we look at one such odd claim.
Responding to portions of "Dr. Kirk MacGregor Vs Dr. Guillaume Bignon: Calvinism Vs Molinism: The Problem or Evil EP 239" https://youtu.be/1wtPCXv-BDk
Dan and Turretinfan respond to Don Johnson and Catholic Answers' argument that slavery and racism are linked to sola scriptura. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL82W...
ἐκληρώθημεν (eklerothemen) in Ephesians 1:11 means obtain an inheritance, but comes from a word related to casting lots. Dan and Turretin Fan discuss this topic. (briefly)
Turretinfan and I discussed “for from him and through him and to him are all things” from Romans 11:36 and “In him we live and move and have our being” from Acts 17:28. I argued that God’s creation and providence, including permission and concurrence, were sufficient to understand these text. Turretinfan disconcurred and viewed concurrence as an evasion of Paul’s language, which he took to be God’s causal sufficiency for all things. We had an interesting exchange as to whether the “in” from Acts 17:28 was about location and therefore God’s omnipresence or instrumentality and therefore God’s causality.
Turretinfan and I disconcurred on God’s creating the wicked for the day of trouble is God’s reprobation of individuals to hell or God’s arranging disasters like Job’s or like wicked nations attacking Israel. We discussed the KJV on Proverbs 16:1, which seems to indicate God forms plans within man’s heart by saying “the preparation of the heart in man…is from the Lord” compared to the ESV which seems to indicate men make their own plans by saying “the plans of the heart belong to man”. We concurred that Proverbs 16:4 seems to imply God has a pre-creation plan for wicked people although we noted an Open Theist reading might be like “if someone becomes wicked, I will punish them”.
We also briefly discussed the radical translation difference for Proverbs 26:10 “The great God who formed all things both rewardeth the fool and rewardeth transgressors.” (KJV) compared to “Like an archer who wounds everyone is one who hires a passing fool or drunkard.” (ESV)
In this episode, we concurred that “predestination”, in 1 Corinthians 2:7 refers to Christ, the cross and plan of salvation. We disconcurred that 1 Corinthians 1:24 refers to an effectual call. We concurred that “called” means more than just invited, like in the phrase “many are called but few are chosen”, because “called”, in 1 Corinthians seems exclusive to believers. We disconcurred that “called” has a group aspect as it seems to have in 1 Corinthians 1:9’s expression “called into the fellowship of His Son”. We disconcurred that the usage kletos in 1 Cor. 1:24 could mean convocation or assembly as it does in the Septuagint for Exodus 12:16 or Leviticus 23:2. We concurred that Clement of Alexandria was explaining why 1 Cor. 1:24 does not refer to an effectual call in Stromata, book 1, Chapter 18, when he said: “All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called.”
This episode was about God’s middle knowledge, rather than a specific verse, although we did discuss Exodus 3:19, Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and 1 Kings 11:2, 9. Our primary point of disconcurrance was, if theistic causal determinism is true, and assuming God creates us and sets up the laws of nature such that secondary causes like our “strongest desires” or our “motives” determine our will in an analogous way to physical force like a rock breaking glass, would God’s knowledge of our voluntary actions in counterfactual circumstances be part of God’s natural knowledge? We also discussed Irenaeus’ comments that God knew Pharaoh wouldn’t believe based on Exodus 3:19 in Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 29, Paragraph 2 and we disconcurred on if Irenaeus held to some early form of middle knowledge. Although philosophical discussions are fun and important, we sort of jumped ahead and plan to get back to exegetical questions on more fundamental disconcurrances next time.
In this episode we discussed predestination in Acts 2:23, 3:18-20 and 4:28. Our main points of disconcurrence were on if 1) Christ death was predestined or both His death and the sinful acts involved, 2) if both is predestination the same as predetermined and 3) if so, does the predetermination of some things imply everything is predetermined?
In this episode, we briefly discussed the Belgic Confession Article 24, which seems to teach faith precedes regeneration. Then we continued our discussion on Ephesians 1, focusing on the predestination language in Ephesians 1:11. We went overview of Arminian views on predestination (differences in the object of predestination (foreknowledge based or corporate) and differences in how predestination works (middle knowledge, will setting…). Then we started word studies on the NT usage of destine and predestination. We disconcurred on: 1) does God predestine who will believe, 2) does God predestine everything, and 3) is predestination the same as determinism?
We all agree God chose us in Christ, but what does that mean? Can a choice be neither unconditional nor random? Who is the 'us' given it was before creation? Is 'in Christ" used in reference to union with Christ or instrumentality? How can we be in Christ and then chosen to be holy? Dan and Turretinfan disconcur on these questions and more in this episode covering Ephesians 1:4-5.
What do you get when a Reformed Baptist (our guest Robert Wiesner) discusses the order of faith and regeneration and its relation to baptism with an Arminian Baptist (Dan) and a Reformed Presbyterian (Turretinfan)? Disconcurance all around! The Baptists disagreed with the Presbyterian on infant Baptism, seeing Baptism as an expression of faith. We all agreed that man is totally depraved and needs grace, but what does that grace look like? Robert and Dan disagreed with Turretinfan that regeneration precedes faith. The Robert and Turretinfan disagreed with Dan that grace is resistible, instead seeing an effectual call. There was some really good discussion around the meaning of regeneration in Titus 3:5, the heart transplant in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the gift of faith and the drawing in John 6. Thanks to Robert for writing on and discussing the topic of how to precisely define regeneration and the order of faith and regeneration.
In this episode, with our guest, David Louis, we discussed 2 Peter 3:9 – God is longsuffering towards you, not willing that any should perish, but all should come to repentance. We disconcurred that the "you" is the church Peter wrote to or the elect, including those not yet born. We disconcurred that the church needs to repent or perish. We disconcurred on if the phase “not willing that any should perish” is a general rule applied to this situation or if it should be restricted to the "you" Peter addresses. We disconcurred that God's long-suffering could include those who end up perishing, like Noah’s preaching prior to the flood discussed in 1 Peter 3:20. Even though Peter seems to borrow language from Sirach 18, we disconcurred that, Sirach’s use of "all flesh" means mankind. Even though Ezekiel 18 teaches God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rather that they should turn and live, we disconcurred this fits a general understanding of 2 Peter 3:9. We disconcurred that the Bible uses general language to describe the extent of Christ's death and God's will to save, but restricted language when talking about predestination or actually forgiving a person's sins or adopting them into God's family. We disconcurred that Peter was addressing misunderstandings Romans 9:22 (i.e. that some were denying God’s will to save and misunderstanding the connection between God's longsuffering and salvation).
We briefly revisited last episode and covered David Lewis's comments on John 6:46. Then we launched into Ephesians 2, where we agreed that the passage teaches total depravity, likely refers to original sin in verse 3 and that, while the grammar of verse 8 doesn't say faith is a gift, faith is in general a gift. We briefly touched on whether 'dead' implies a requirement for pre-faith regeneration and disconcurred of the implications of being made alive "in Christ". We disconcurred if we can reject the gift of faith or not. We agreed that salvation is by grace but disconcurred on how to avoid taking credit for part of salvation. I argued that God saves believers, and that if He didn't save believers, they would go to hell, and that is the answer. Turretinfan argued that irresistible grace is also needed to avoid taking credit for salvation, but we disconcurred.
Turretinfan and I discussed John 6. We agreed that John 6:44 teaches not just the lack of opportunity, but the natural inability to believe the gospel (i.e. total inability). We disconcurred that drawing or the Father’s teaching were effectual (John 6:44-45), and that faith rather than enablement is the gift of God in John 6:65 and that the giving of some to the Father is based in eternal election or in prior reception to the Father’s teaching through Moses and other means.
Turretinfan and I discussed John 10:26: “you do not believe because you are not my sheep”. I mapped out various non-Calvinist explanations, including, “faithful Jews”, inclusivism, and prevenient grace and then defend the prevenient grace view. The main points of disconcurrance were: 1) are sheep considered as “the elect” or rather does sheep being predisposed to follow make election irrelevant, 2) can sheep be considered as the elect, given they sometimes ignore Christ and follow false teachers before conversion, 3) is saying you are not my sheep a rebuke, 4) do verses 37-38 indicate some people resist the Father preparing them to believe the Son? We agreed that John 10 teaches some form of perseverance of the saints.
The main points of disconcurrance were “whosover”, “world” and the lifting up of the bronze serpent. Regarding “whoever”, the disconcurrance was if it’s indefinite and a general offer of salvation to everyone, or not. Here we touch on James White’s rendering of “all the believing ones” compared to Bill Mounce’s article on “indefinite construction”. The most important disconcurrance was over the meaning of “world”. Regarding “world”, the disconcurrance was how world relates to people and if world includes non-elect people, such as the “light rejectors” in John 3:19. Regarding the “lifting up of the bronze serpent and the Son of Man, the disconcurrance was if the lifting up has to be for everyone to explain the offer of salvation for everyone and the added guilt of those who reject. I hope you enjoy!
Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) briefly review Dan's discussion with Leighton Flowers, then dig in to 1 Timothy 2:4:6. The main points of discucurrance were talking "all men" to mean everyone or not, does Christ's being the Mediator and ransom guarantee effectual mediation and freedom or not, should we pray for everyone and is the reference to testification related to preaching the gospel to everyone?
Dan (Arminian) and Turretinfan (Calvinist) discuss 1 Tim 4:10, and briefly answer a question from the David Pallmann/Derick Murrell debate regarding foreknowledge and the atonement. The main points of disconcurrance on 1 Tim 4:10 were the meaning of "savior" and "especially".