Boring FloridaMan

@OzMarquezz @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok Completely understand

@BoringFLMan @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok It’s short. I’m just taking a break from the back and forth. Did enough of that already.

Hey Calvinists, Instead of saying “anti-Calvinists” you can just say “Provisionists” since everyone who is pro-God’s love and provision for everyone is going to be an “anti-Calvinist” by default 😉 Sincerely, Me

@OzMarquezz @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok Can't watch now but will take a look later.

@BoringFLMan @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok youtu.be/FLHAiID3gdw?is… youtu.be/FLHAiID3gdw?is…

@OzMarquezz @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok 1) I don't buy Calvin thought it was just a decree to permit. 2) Most Calvinists (maybe not the true scot) would also say that the final impertinency was determined not merely permitted. 3) If you agreed with Calvin why did you kneejerk against his example being used earlier?

@BoringFLMan @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok What does doomed from the womb have to do with the idea that men perish apart from sin? Doesn’t it just mean that since God knows their final impertinency and has decreed to permit their sin and unbelief, they are in that sense “doomed from the womb”?

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel Nothing makes them! The same way you, I assume, submitted yourself to Christ in obedience all men are commanded to as well. Christ offers salvation to all men and some will have faith with humility while some will stubbornly reject the free gift in selfish pride.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel But what makes one person surrender to Christ but not others?

⁴⁸ …as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. —Acts 13:48b (ESV)

@OzMarquezz @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok People who believe in "doomed from the womb" would call themselves Calvinists. But no true Scotsman I suppose.

@BoringFLMan @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @grok “Calvinism” was coined by the Lutherans for those who followed Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper. So he’s irrelevant to the correction I made to Leighton’s false suggestion that Calvinists believe in damnation apart from sin. Dort on the other hand is authoritative and relevant.

@The_Idol_Killer @ronhenzel I was just thinking how he did all that work to make a point I could have just granted him.

This post by @ronhenzel overstates what Greek grammar can actually establish. Demonstrating reflexive middles are rare doesn't prove Acts 13:48 cannot be understood otherwise... rarity is NOT impossibility. Morphology alone cant answer the real interpretive questions... Who appointed them?... When?... On what basis?... To what end?... Even if τεταγμένοι is passive, Calvinism still doesn't follow. Grammar identifies the form while context determines the meaning. Theology cant just be read off a participle. But when you have Calvinist glasses on, its hard to see anything else.

@Fletch1171 We are in late stage Calvinism. There are two very different Calvinist factions(hyper-determinists and the historical reformed guys) basically acting as if the other doesn't exist while still joining together to "own the provs".

Calvinists are on the ropes so bad they have retreated to 1 John 5.1 and Acts 13.48. 🤣

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel Absolutely! It's those who surrender to Christ vs those who trust in themselves or in anything else. We cannot boast in surrendering, it is in itself admission that we are not enough. It is impossible to boast in humiliation ha! So if we boast we must boast in Christ!

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel But it means something is making a difference between one group and another group. What is it? And we know from 1 Cor. 1:26-31, whatever it is must exclude the one group that does believe from boasting. So it can’t be that they were wiser, more pious, better people in some way

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel I think I see what you are saying. The text doesn't really say anything about the other gentiles that except, as you say, they logically were not appointed/disposed. But still none of this means the passage is teaching Calvinism.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel If you replace “appointed” with “disposed”, it would still be dividing the gentiles into two groups by the phrase “as many as”. That was the point of my post. It’s not just a group of gentiles and a group of Jews. It’s two different groups of gentiles too.

@ProvisionistP @OzMarquezz @Soteriology101 @grok What does Calvin have to do with Calvinism!

@OzMarquezz @Soteriology101 @grok I didn’t say anything about Dordt here. I was merely asking your opinion (which you’ve declined to give me for some reason)

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel Ok, you do that. "Appointed" is ok as long as you understand what the Greek was actually trying to convey. You don't seem want to understand that and just want to make the scripture agree with your stance.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel I’m sorry, but I think I’m gonna go with probably 100’s of translation teams (which are composed of people from different theological persuasions and include many non-Calvinists).

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel Again you are using the contested issue as evidence for your argument. That's like saying: "I'm right because I say I'm right!" You don't have an argument you just have presuppositions. It's the same thing you did the other day with about omniscience.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel What’s not in this passage? “As many as were appointed” excludes some that were not appointed.

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel What? Read the story! They were jealous because the people were listening to Paul and Barnabus and weren't listening to them. You keep trying to move the goalpost into metaphysics when the story speaks for itself. The scripture isn't say what you are assuming it says

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel You won’t answer the question because you don’t have an answer that isn’t “group A was more…. Than group B”.

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel I don't know if there is a perfect english word for what the greek word being translated is but I think disposed is pretty good. evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abascian… Our english word choice in translation doesn't change the greek meaning which is not a deterministic meaning.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel You should also look at Acts 13:48 and try to find any translation that says “disposed”. I just read through it in about 30 translations all of which either said “appointed”, “ordained”, “destined”, “chosen”, “marked out for”. None said “disposed”.

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel That's not in this passage. You keep assuming your own presuppositions as true and then stating them as evidence to support your own arguments.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel The other thing is, it’s not just two completely separate groups (Jews and gentiles). There are also gentiles that didn’t believe. So you can even ask, why did some gentiles believe and others didn’t? It’s because the former were chosen to eternal life and the latter weren’t.

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel You are forcing your presuppositions into the text. This "Why? Why? Why?" routine is your attempt to stop looking at the text and just lean into what you already think. Verse 48 is the contested issue so using it as evidence is just assuming yourself correct.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel Why did they reject it and become filled with jealousy while the other group rejoiced in it? It tells you in verse 48

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel Why did the Jews "not consider themselves worthy of eternal life"? Because they were filled with jealousy while the gentiles were rejoicing as the text says.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel Why is one group disposed to eternal life while the other group isn’t?

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel You would think if he liked the more oft used word "appointed" better he would have used it. It doesn't really matter the thrust of the argument does not lie in the opinion of this guy. It is in the greek. He is just evidence that the word isn't unheard of even for Calvinists.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel Nowhere in that paragraph does he say that “disposed” is a better word than appointed.

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel In verse 46 Paul and Barnabus give us their thoughts on it. But I was not the one pushing this scripture as a prooftext. I am simply saying it's a very bad Calvinistic prooftext due to its context and a understanding of its greek meaning.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel Even if I grant that disposed is the more accurate translation there, it doesn’t really solve the problem. Why is one group disposed to eternal life while the other group isn’t?

@S0lide0gloria @ronhenzel Well yeah he is a Calvinist, he views the entire Bible as determinism. But he himself thought disposed was a better word than appointed. And then the context of v46 clarifies the usage further. Those in v46 were not disposed like those in 48 were disposed.

@BoringFLMan @ronhenzel Also that paragraph by Matthew Henry is perfectly Calvinistic. He says exactly what we believe about this verse in the first sentence. It’s only after that he attempts to shed more light on it by using “disposed”. That does not nullify what he says all around it.