Evidence for God from Science

On the other hand, I have found this: http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/ ... -1348.html. There are good arguments too.

Hana, the problem with reading scripture through a "Calvinist" lens, or "Arminian" lens, is that now there's a tendency to make the specific scripture fit into the theological box that one is filtering scripture through. Of course those who adhere to a specific system, certainly don't see it that way. And there's where a melee breaks out.

RickD wrote:Hana, the problem with reading scripture through a "Calvinist" lens, or "Arminian" lens, is that now there's a tendency to make the specific scripture fit into the theological box that one is filtering scripture through. Of course those who adhere to a specific system, certainly don't see it that way. And there's where a melee breaks out.

Exactly. Like why is it always Calvinist or Arminianist? Why not Catholic-ist or SDA-ist for example (I'm looking after you too Bav, no worries).

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Hana, the problem with reading scripture through a "Calvinist" lens, or "Arminian" lens, is that now there's a tendency to make the specific scripture fit into the theological box that one is filtering scripture through. Of course those who adhere to a specific system, certainly don't see it that way. And there's where a melee breaks out.

Exactly. Like why is it always Calvinist or Arminianist? Why not Catholic-ist or SDA-ist for example (I'm looking after you too Bav, no worries).

Byblos, it's never Catholic-ist, because we never have any real disagreements around here, involving Catholic stuff.

And, as far as Seventh Day Advent-ist, from what I know, they don't like NFL football, because it's on Sundays. They prefer the college game, because it's on Saturday. Or, something like that, I think...

RickD wrote: Hana, the problem with reading scripture through a "Calvinist" lens, or "Arminian" lens, is that now there's a tendency to make the specific scripture fit into the theological box that one is filtering scripture through.

I try to use my own eyes. Not specific lenses. All I strive for is consistency.

Byblos wrote: Like why is it always Calvinist or Arminianist? Why not Catholic-ist or SDA-ist for example?

Well, I am going to look into what Catholics and SDA-ists think about the verse 48.

Byblos wrote:Exactly. Like why is it always Calvinist or Arminianist? Why not Catholic-ist or SDA-ist for example (I'm looking after you too Bav, no worries).

RickD wrote:And, as far as Seventh Day Advent-ist, from what I know, they don't like NFL football, because it's on Sundays. They prefer the college game, because it's on Saturday. Or, something like that, I think...

Uh...what? I love NFL Football...what does one have to do with the other?

RickD wrote:Byblos, it's never Catholic-ist, because we never have any real disagreements around here, involving Catholic stuff.

How could you, there ain't nothin' to disagree about.

I'll come out and say that I fall heavily on the "Calvinistic side" of interpreting that and other verses. But with me it wasn't because I started out looking at things from a Calvinistic standpoint and used that lens and so "perverted" or "skewed" my interpretation. On the contrary, I grew up primarily around people who were heavily influenced by Arminian philosophy/theology and very few Calvinists. So I came to see things more like a Calvinist would by study and trying to find which viewpoints best fit what we know from Scripture. I also try to pray for clarity and discernment rather than allowing what's attractive personally dictate how I interpret Scripture.

To admit one of my biases (we all do have biases of course, but its good to have an "informed bias"), I was attracted to what I saw as a very strong intellectual Reformed tradition. Many young theologians also seem to be falling closer to the "Calvinist" side of the discussion than in the past. So I don't want to just jump on board with that, I'm not going to label myself as a Calvinist who follows Calvin rather than God. But systematic theology is very, very useful and while its not that everything Calvin or his followers taught must be correct, but if it came down to picking sides I would go against Arminianism and for Calvinism every time.

Attached is a paper I wrote way back in 2006 on this subject while I was still in my undergrad program. First paper I presented at a conference, too . . .

edit:

Here's the conclusion to the paper

• In this paper we have briefly examined the chief arguments for the Reformed and non-Reformed views of Acts 13:48. We agree with the former in that the word tassõ means “to appoint, ordain, or establish.” The word denotes the actual bestowing of eternal life upon the Gentiles. But we also argued that to read anything further into the word presses it beyond the meaning. Tassõ means “to ordain,” not “to foreordain.” We agree with the non-Reformed position in that the context strongly displays a contrast between the Jews’ considering themselves as unworthy of eternal life to the Gentiles’ being established into it. Just as the Jews did not reject the Gospel because of their self-judgment, so also the Gentiles did not believe it because of their appointment. Rather, in rejecting the Gospel, the Jews considered themselves unworthy of eternal life. In believing the Gospel, the Gentiles were established into it.
  It seems the primary idea of the text, then, is that Luke is describing two groups of people: the Jews, unworthy of eternal life, and the Gentiles, enrolled into it. Thus, in a perfectly acceptable grammatical way, Luke says that those who had been ordained to eternal life were the ones who had believed. There is no thought of pretemporal salvation in the verse. Here, appointment to life is coterminous with belief.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:Exactly. Like why is it always Calvinist or Arminianist? Why not Catholic-ist or SDA-ist for example (I'm looking after you too Bav, no worries).

RickD wrote:And, as far as Seventh Day Advent-ist, from what I know, they don't like NFL football, because it's on Sundays. They prefer the college game, because it's on Saturday. Or, something like that, I think...

Uh...what? I love NFL Football...what does one have to do with the other?

Apparently, it was a lame attempt at a joke, on my part. You know, worshiping on Saturday instead of Sunday...Oh, just forget it.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos, it's never Catholic-ist, because we never have any real disagreements around here, involving Catholic stuff.

How could you, there ain't nothin' to disagree about.

That's what I always say. I don't know why anyone fusses over the tiny differences between Protestantism, and Catholicism.

1over137 wrote:I try to use my own eyes. Not specific lenses. All I strive for is consistency.

Good. Keep that up and you'll do well. Keep in mind that there is a difference between God's foreordination and His foreknowledge: God foreordained the salvation of Man through Jesus' sacrifice and He foreknew which people in Acts 13:48 would be saved. Those in Acts 13:48 that failed, ordained - or appointed - their own failure.

FL

Thank you guys for keeping this discussion civil. And thank you Jac for sharing your interesting paper. I wish to show it to my old wise friend, but currently he is very busy. He studied Greek and hermeneutics also.

@Rick: Wasn't it interesting to see how the verse 48 is translated in various Bibles? For me it was and I did not ask guys for it to settle the issue. I was just curious.

1over137 wrote: Well, I am going to look into what Catholics and SDA-ists think about the verse 48.

Could you guys help me with this? I was not that succesful at googling the answer.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Greek word in question here is tasso ..

What i would give for some tasso right now ...
http://www.nolacuisine.com/2005/11/03/h ... so-recipe/