Defending the truth against the primary so called "proof texts" against Calvinism

[Winman]

The Scriptures say "before the foundation of the world." So unless you existed before the foundation of the world, then you didn't exist when you were chosen.

"he has chosen US" So yes, we are the ones being chosen here. The election was in Christ. I didn't exist yet. God isn't omniscient?
Sorry, but that isn't what the text says. It says, "even as he chose US." The object of the election is "US"

Election is according to God's foreknowledge, that is, it is according to God knowing something before it actually comes to pass. Being "in Him" shows that God knew who would place faith in Christ, because only believers are "in Him".

And there are several examples of God's foreknowledge of who would believe (or not) shown in scripture such as Nathanael in John 1:48 and Judas in John 6:64.

 

[jbh28]

Election is according to God's foreknowledge, that is, it is according to God knowing something before it actually comes to pass. Being "in Him" shows that God knew who would place faith in Christ, because only believers are "in Him".

And there are several examples of God's foreknowledge of who would believe (or not) shown in scripture such as Nathanael in John 1:48 and Judas in John 6:64.

The difference between our views is that you believe election is conditional on faith and I don't. We agree on the timing(before the foundation of the world) and object(us) of the election which is what I was pointing.

 

[Winman]

The difference between our views is that you believe election is conditional on faith and I don't. We agree on the timing(before the foundation of the world) and object(us) of the election which is what I was pointing.

You have to disagree, otherwise your system would fall apart.

You know as well as I that election is according to foreknowledge. That is beyond dispute.

Non-Cals like myself can demonstrate that God knows who will believe or not before they actually do so, I just gave two examples.

You on the other hand cannot not explain what this foreknowledge is, meanwhile denying what you DO see.

 

[jbh28]

You have to disagree, otherwise your system would fall apart.

You know as well as I that election is according to foreknowledge. That is beyond dispute.

Non-Cals like myself can demonstrate that God knows who will believe or not before they actually do so, I just gave two examples.

You on the other hand cannot not explain what this foreknowledge is, meanwhile denying what you DO see.

You provided no verses that said that God chose based on who he knew would believe. Go back and look at them and they don't say that at all.

 

[Winman]

You provided no verses that said that God chose based on who he knew would believe. Go back and look at them and they don't say that at all.

That is not so, read John 6:67-71. Right after saying that Jesus knew FROM THE BEGINNING (before the foundation of the world) who believed not and who should betray him (vs. 64), Jesus asks the twelve if they would also go away. Peter answers for the group and says, "And WE believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". There is faith.

Jesus responds, "Have not I CHOSEN you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

You see, Jesus chose eleven because he knew they would believe. He chose Judas because he knew he would not believe, and would betray him fulfilling the scriptures. This is shown in John 13:18.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I KNOW WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. 19 NOW I TELL YOU BEFORE IT COME, THAT, WHEN IT IS COME TO PASS, ye may believe that I am he.

There you go, plain as day, this is God's foreknowledge shown you, but you reject it to hold your doctrine.

 

[Iconoclast]

Romans 5 does not teach that Adam's sin is imputed to us, else you MUST believe in Universalism.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If the first phrase of this verse teaches that Adam's sin was imputed to all men, then the second phrase MUST teach that Christ's righteousness is imputed to all men.

We know that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to all men, therefore we know your interpretation of this verse is error. Romans 5 does not teach that Adam's sin is imputed to us, on the contrary, it teaches that death has passed on all men because of their own personal sin.

Saying we are MADE sinners by Adam's sin is speaking of his example and influence. For instance, many were made atheists by the writings of Charles Darwin. His beliefs were not imputed to people, but people became atheists by personally believeing his theory. Adam introduced sin and the corruption thereof into the world, by this influence many are made sinners. A pervert oftentimes begins by reading pornographic material. A person often becomes a drunk by the influence of their parents who drank. But the choice to sin is their's, it is not imposed on them as you falsely teach.

You do not understand romans 5 at all;

12because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

All humans sinned in Adam......Not all humans are born from above into Christ.
Adams sin was imputed to all humans
Jesus righteousness to all the elect.

We all sinned in Adam,then we sin in our own experience.
Not all are In Christ

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity, but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…” Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

 

[jbh28]

That is not so, read John 6:67-71. Right after saying that Jesus knew FROM THE BEGINNING (before the foundation of the world) who believed not and who should betray him (vs. 64), Jesus asks the twelve if they would also go away. Peter answers for the group and says, "And WE believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". There is faith.

Jesus responds, "Have not I CHOSEN you twelve, and one of you is a devil?"

You see, Jesus chose eleven because he knew they would believe. He chose Judas because he knew he would not believe, and would betray him fulfilling the scriptures. This is shown in John 13:18.

No where in that passage does it say that Jesus chose BECAUSE he knew. In fact, Jesus says that "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" in John 15:16.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I KNOW WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. 19 NOW I TELL YOU BEFORE IT COME, THAT, WHEN IT IS COME TO PASS, ye may believe that I am he.

There you go, plain as day, this is God's foreknowledge shown you, but you reject it to hold your doctrine.

Of course Jesus knows who he has chosen. He doesn't forget. Again, not even remotely close to proving that Jesus chose BECAUSE he knew ahead of time. I'll let you have another shot at it though cause I'm nice.

 

[Rippon]

First, I am not Pelagian whatsoever,

In a few respects you are as your own words have condemned you. You think Adam only set a bad example.

Romans 5 IS NOT teaching that Adam's sin is imputed, because we KNOW that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to all men.

Charles Finney would be so proud of you. You think Romans 5:19 is saying that Adam's sin was not imputed to the human race.You claim (without a shred of scriptural evidence) that it is speaking of personal sin. You fail Bible 101.

 

[Winman]

In a few respects you are as your own words have condemned you. You think Adam only set a bad example.




Charles Finney would be so proud of you. You think Romans 5:19 is saying that Adam's sin was not imputed to the human race.You claim (without a shred of scriptural evidence) that it is speaking of personal sin. You fail Bible 101.

I do not fail Bible 101, Rom 5:14 directly says men do not die because of Adam's sin.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them THAT HAD NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM'S TRANSGRESSION, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Adam's sin was not imputed to these men, else it would say they DID sin after the similitude of his sin.

Rom 5:12 does not say a word about Adam's sin being passed (imputed) to us, it says death passed on us because all men have personally committed their own sin.

Those men from Adam to Moses did not have the Law of Moses, but they had law none the less, they had the law of their conscience, and the law written on their heart. Pharaoh knew it was wrong to have Sarai when he found out she was Abraham's wife in Gen 12, this was hundreds of years before the law of Moses. Men knew right from wrong.

 

[Robert Snow]

When have you found me lacking in answers?

You have plenty of answers, they are just the wrong answers.

 

[glfredrick]

You have plenty of answers, they are just the wrong answers.

Thanks for at least acknowledging that I am answering questions. I've never noticed that I shy away from any question unless it is simply baiting tactic, such as your own response above.

Seeing as how some of you here are so enamored of libertarian free will, can I not express my own free will and refuse to answer without being called out? Guess not... So much for your pet theory in action. :thumbs:

About the "wrong" part, well, I simply consider the source...

 

[Ron Wood]

Please show me one place in the Scriptures that the word foreknowledge is used in connection with what He foreknew. It never says what He foreknew but whom He foreknew. The word for prescience is a different word altogether. In almost every instance the word "know" is used in connection with God in the Scriptures it is used in the same way as when Adam knew his wife, in an intimate loving union. When the Lord tells those folks in Matt. 7:23 that He never knew them it is obvious that He knew all about them. He is simply saying that He never had an intimate union with them. Therefore predestination and election are not based on prescience but in an eternal covenant relationship that is before the foundation of the world. Paul proves this in Rom. 5: 12-21. He is showing the covenant headship of Adam and Christ. God deals with all men in only two men: Adam or Christ. You are either in Adam and under the curse or in Christ and under grace and mercy. He uses the same argument in 1Cor. 15:21-22, 45. In Rom. he uses the representative headship of Adam and Christ to show righteousness by imputation and in 1Cor. resurrection according to representative headship. If Adam's sin isn't imputed to us then Christ's righteousness can't be.

BTW, Rom. 5:14 is talking about why infants die.

 

[Ron Wood]

The representative characteristics of Adam and Christ are easily seen in even the way the world conducts buisness. In the US our system of government is based on it. When we elect representatives they speak and act for us and what they do is counted as though we do it. More than that even kings are representatives of those in their dominion. When they act they act for all the people under them. If they make a treaty it is as though the people made the treaty and is binding on them as well as him. Ambassadors are representatives of their respective governments. When they negotiate whatever they negotiate is binding as though the people they represent did it themselves. God made a covenant with Adam when He placed him in the Garden and Adam broke it. All who were in him by natural generation, all his seed, broke it with him. In the same way Christ is the covenant Surety of all those who are in Him by supernatural regeneration, His seed.

 

[Winman]

Please show me one place in the Scriptures that the word foreknowledge is used in connection with what He foreknew.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

It does not say foreknowledge here, but it shows foreknowledge, it shows Jesus knew from the beginning (the foundation of the world) who would believe not and who would betray him. And of course if Jesus knows who believes not, then he also knows who believes. To know something beforehand is the definition of foreknowledge, so this is foreknowledge.

It never says what He foreknew but whom He foreknew. The word for prescience is a different word altogether. In almost every instance the word "know" is used in connection with God in the Scriptures it is used in the same way as when Adam knew his wife, in an intimate loving union.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, God knows all about every person, he knows the very number of the hairs of our head (Matt 10:30). If someone believes he knows it, if they believe not he knows it.

When the Lord tells those folks in Matt. 7:23 that He never knew them it is obvious that He knew all about them. He is simply saying that He never had an intimate union with them.

I agree with this.

Therefore predestination and election are not based on prescience but in an eternal covenant relationship that is before the foundation of the world. Paul proves this in Rom. 5: 12-21. He is showing the covenant headship of Adam and Christ.

You err here. Prescience is defined as foreknowledge, and 1 Peter 1:2 says election is according to foreknowledge.

I don't know where you get this covenant headship of Adam. Show me where God ever made a covenant with Adam in scripture.

God deals with all men in only two men: Adam or Christ. You are either in Adam and under the curse or in Christ and under grace and mercy. He uses the same argument in 1Cor. 15:21-22, 45. In Rom. he uses the representative headship of Adam and Christ to show righteousness by imputation and in 1Cor. resurrection according to representative headship. If Adam's sin isn't imputed to us then Christ's righteousness can't be.

I agree that we are all under the curse. But what was the curse? Does it say that God cursed man's moral nature so that he was depraved and could not make a positive choice toward God? No, there is not one word to that effect in Genesis or anywhere else in scripture. You would think doctrine of such monumental importance would be stated in scripture at least once, but it is not. How do you explain that?

No, the curse was on the ground. This includes all creation. Animals die, but they do not sin, plants die, but they do not sin. Even unliving material objects are under the curse, stars burn out, mountains erode, metals rust and corrode...

We did inherit a corrupted body from our parents that is under the curse, we begin to die the day we are born. Our bodies are made of the dust of the earth, and that is what the curse is upon.

BTW, Rom. 5:14 is talking about why infants die.

Infants die because they are under the curse. As I mentioned before, plants and animals die, but they do not sin. An infant cannot sin because they are incapable of doing either good or bad.

This is where Calvinism goes wrong. Sin is not a substance, sin is a work, it is something you do. God does not judge us according to our nature or our potential to sin, he judges us for actual sin we commit.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

You cannot inherit sin, sin is something you do. It is a work, it is something you perform.

And being a "sinner" is a legal judgment, it is not something physical. A felon's body is no different from a non-felon, but they have committed a crime.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Being a sinner is a legal judgment, it is a condemnation for something you have done or performed, it is not something material or physical. This is where Calvinism errs, you cannot inherit sin from another person.

 

[Winman]

If Adam's sin isn't imputed to us then Christ's righteousness can't be.

The scriptures nowhere say Adam's sin is imputed to us.

Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

This does not say one word about Adam's sin being imputed to us. It is speaking of our own personal sin. You cannot provide one verse of scripture that says Adam's sin was imputed to us.

 

[jbh28]

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

It does not say foreknowledge here, but it shows foreknowledge, it shows Jesus knew from the beginning (the foundation of the world) who would believe not and who would betray him. And of course if Jesus knows who believes not, then he also knows who believes. To know something beforehand is the definition of foreknowledge, so this is foreknowledge.

Nothing in that passage says that the Father chose us based on foreknowledge of who would believe.

I'm still waiting for a passage that says that God chose us based on who would believe. God knowing who would believe doesn't mean that is the basis of his election. God choosing who would believe would in of itself mean that God knows who will believe(he chose us). So that doesn't get us anywhere. Nobody denies that God knows who the believers are, its a matter over the basis of election and I have yet to see a passage that says that God chose based on seeing who would choose him. aka. chose us because we chose him.

 

[Winman]

Nothing in that passage says that the Father chose us based on foreknowledge of who would believe.

I'm still waiting for a passage that says that God chose us based on who would believe. God knowing who would believe doesn't mean that is the basis of his election. God choosing who would believe would in of itself mean that God knows who will believe(he chose us). So that doesn't get us anywhere. Nobody denies that God knows who the believers are, its a matter over the basis of election and I have yet to see a passage that says that God chose based on seeing who would choose him. aka. chose us because we chose him.

I showed you, but you refuse to accept it.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Does vs. 64 show that Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not and who would betray him (Judas)? Yes. That is FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FAITH right there, because if Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not, then he also knows who will believe.

You can deny all you want, the scriptures clearly show foreknowledge of faith.

Now look at verse 69, what is this verse speaking of? FAITH.

Now look at Jesus's response to this statement of FAITH by Peter, he says, "Have I not CHOSEN you twelve". That is ELECTION my friend. Isn't that a strange and remarkable response to Peter's statement of faith? Why after Peter said they believed on him would Jesus speak of election, saying he had chosen them?

It is all right in front of you, but you refuse to accept it because you would rather hold to your doctrine.

Now, let's go to John 13

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

What does vs. 18 speak about? It speaks about election, but it also refers back to John 6:64 where it says Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not and who should betray him.

What does vs. 19 show? It shows FOREKNOWLEDGE. It shows Jesus telling his disciples things that he knew would come to pass before they actually did. And then why does Jesus say he revealed this? So that they may BELIEVE.

So, once again we see foreknowledge, faith, and election all tied together in this passage.

 

[jbh28]

I showed you, but you refuse to accept it.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Does vs. 64 show that Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe not and who would betray him (Judas)? Yes. That is FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FAITH right there, because if Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not, then he also knows who will believe.

You can deny all you want, the scriptures clearly show foreknowledge of faith.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I agree that God knows who will believe. That's NOT the issue.

Now look at verse 69, what is this verse speaking of? FAITH.

Now look at Jesus's response to this statement of FAITH by Peter, he says, "Have I not CHOSEN you twelve". That is ELECTION my friend. Isn't that a strange and remarkable response to Peter's statement of faith? Why after Peter said they believed on him would Jesus speak of election, saying he had chosen them?

It is all right in front of you, but you refuse to accept it because you would rather hold to your doctrine.

I refuse to accept it because the Bible isn't saying what you are saying it says.

I can say the same thing. Jesus knew who would believe because He had chosen them. You still haven't shown that the choosing was based on that. All you did is show that Jesus knew who would be saved(agreed) and that he chose us(agreed) but nothing that the choosing was BASED on the already knowing. All you are doing is saying the two things are true(which I agree) but haven't shown that the choosing was based on the knowing.

Now, let's go to John 13

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

What does vs. 18 speak about? It speaks about election, but it also refers back to John 6:64 where it says Jesus knew from the beginning who believed not and who should betray him.

What does vs. 19 show? It shows FOREKNOWLEDGE. It shows Jesus telling his disciples things that he knew would come to pass before they actually did. And then why does Jesus say he revealed this? So that they may BELIEVE.

again, you fail to show that the choosing was BASED on the foreknowing. In fact, read it again. Jesus says I know who I have chosen. Of course! He talks about believing(yes) but not the he chose based on knowing who he would believe. All it says here about knowing is whom he has chosen.

All you are doing is finding choosing and knowing together and assuming that the choosing is based on the knowing and that's simply can't be done. Don't say that I just don't "see" it. That's just a cop out. Remember, if God chose not based on foreknowledge who would be saved, he would know who the believers are before the foundation of the world.

So, once again we see foreknowledge, faith, and election all tied together in this passage.

and they tie in together in my view too.

election, foreknowledge faith. Still you need to show that the foreknowledge of faith is the basis of election. God chose because he first knew we would choose.

 

[Winman]

You have been shown, you refuse to accept this because it overthrows your doctrine.

I guess it is just some remarkable coincidence that these two accounts speak of foreknowledge, faith, and election all together. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you for cheap. :laugh:

And you know, it doesn't really matter what I would tell you God's foreknowledge is, you would reject anything foreseen in man, because that would overthrow unconditional election. You must believe it is based on some secret God is keeping from all of us, because that is what your doctrine teaches. It cannot be based on any foreknowledge of man whatsoever.

I don't quite understand unconditional election as Calvinism understands it. If this foreknowledge is some big secret, then why would God mention it in 1 Peter 1:2? Boy, if I wanted to keep something secret, I would not mention it at all. So this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Robert Snow]

About the "wrong" part, well, I simply consider the source...

Yes, Calvin is not a good source. Read and obey the bible, leave Calvin in his grave!