Scriptures that Refute Calvinism

[JBO]

In the Hebrew mind, to know has a couple meanings. It is not the same "know" that we English speakers are usually familiar with. I think that we should see that "to foreknow" is the same as "to have a relationship with." God makes plans for us based on what He knows about us. Also, knowing us from the beginning, he also plans for our future condition - which already exists for Him.

In the Hebrew, to know was sometimes a euphemism not for just some relationship, but rather for the explicit act of sexual intercourse. To think that a euphemism for sexual intercourse carries any meaning whatsoever for God's foreknowledge is not simply crude, it borders on heresy. God's foreknowledge is nothing more than God's omniscience as it applies to the future. God declares in Isaiah 46:9-10, "For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning," Declaring the end from the beginning is God's foreknowledge; it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

I rest my mind on something else Paul said:
Rom 9:14–18 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

The Calvinist interpretation of the whole of Romans 9 is simply wrong. It is not a declaration of support of the Calvinist doctrine of election. Rather, it is a statement and defense of God's absolute right to use anyone as he chooses to bring about His plans without having to save them. It is a declaration of God's selection (election) for service without having to save them. He chose Pharaoh to do his bidding. There was/is no requirement for God to save Pharaoh. He chose (elected) both Jacob and Esau for service. There was/is no requirement to save them. Paul introduced chapter nine speaking of God's choosing (electing) Israel for His purpose of bringing His plan of salvation to mankind. But being a member, according to the flesh, of the nation Israe, did not mean that God would save them. Paul said in verse 6, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..." The reason for chapter 9 in Romans was to refute the Judaizers claim that being a Jew (an Israelite) was sufficient to guarantee salvation.

Romans 9:14-19 is not a declaration of election for salvation. In fact quite the opposite. Verse 17 is a quote from Exodus 9:16, "But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth." It is a declaration of election for service. God chose Pharaoh to accomplish his purpose; nothing there says anything about choosing Pharaoh or anyone else for salvation. In fact, the hardening spoken of in verse 18 has nothing whatsoever to do with where Pharaoh would end up in the next life.

Paul says, in verse 21, "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" Here again, there is nothing at all about saving anyone. This is strictly the potter using the clay for whatever purpose God had for it. It is about using the clay here on earth, not how it would end up in the next life.

Rom 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
Rom 9:23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

It is only in God's selection for service that His wrath is demonstrated and His power is made known. That cannot be about salvation, because God's selection for salvation cannot be observed by anyone else. His selection for salvation doesn't demonstrate anything to anyone nor does it make His power known to anyone, since election for salvation is not a physically observable act of God.

 

[Logikos]

How about the principle that everything written in the original manuscripts is from God and is true?

That presupposed normal logical reasoning. Put in the form of a syllogism, it goes basically like this...

The Bible is true.
XYZ contradict the bible.
Therefore, XYZ doctrine is false. (Law of contradiction.)
QED

If God need not be rational, then this would not apply.

How about the principle that if we believe that there are conflicting statements in scripture, the conflict is with us and not with God's scriptures.

That would be a rash judgment because there very definitely are statements in scripture that conflict with each other. That's just a plain fact and it isn't a problem unless we try to ignore the conflict and simplistically and irrationally declare both conflicting passages to be true without caveat or explanation. In other words, it is only a problem if we abandon sound reason!

Thus, once again, if God need not be rational, this also would not apply.

I prefer the principle that no doctrine should exist unless it can be validated by the entirety of scripture?

"entirety" is a redundancy and the statement itself a self-contradictory statement.

It is itself a doctrine that cannot be validated by scripture.

Those principles are a good start, don't you think?

They are just fine but it misses the point.

The point is that you cannot except the idea that God need not be rational because God is the source of all reason. More than that, He IS Reason. In just the same sense that God is Love, God is Reason. Both concepts derive their meaning from the very person of God Himself. If God is irrational, there could be no such thing as reason and there is no such thing as an irrational truth - by definition! God is Truth! Therefore God IS rational - by definition. When you posit that God can be irrational you throw away your only means by which to falsify any claim that someone might make and throw open the door to any wild-eyed wacko doctrine that any cult leader want to conjure up!

 

[Robert Pate]

That presupposed normal logical reasoning. Put in the form of a syllogism, it goes basically like this...

The Bible is true.
XYZ contradict the bible.
Therefore, XYZ doctrine is false. (Law of contradiction.)
QED

If God need not be rational, then this would not apply.


That would be a rash judgment because there very definitely are statements in scripture that conflict with each other. That's just a plain fact and it isn't a problem unless we try to ignore the conflict and simplistically and irrationally declare both conflicting passages to be true without caveat or explanation. In other words, it is only a problem if we abandon sound reason!

Thus, once again, if God need not be rational, this also would not apply.


"entirety" is a redundancy and the statement itself a self-contradictory statement.

It is itself a doctrine that cannot be validated by scripture.


They are just fine but it misses the point.

The point is that you cannot except the idea that God need not be rational because God is the source of all reason. More than that, He IS Reason. In just the same sense that God is Love, God is Reason. Both concepts derive their meaning from the very person of God Himself. If God is irrational, there could be no such thing as reason and there is no such thing as an irrational truth - be definition! God is Truth! Therefore God IS rational - by definition. When you posit that God can be irrational you throw away your only means by which to falsify any claim that someone might make and throw open the door to any wild-eyed wacko doctrine that any cult leader want to conjure up!

The biggest problem that most people have with the Bible is that they try to mix Old Covenant theology with New Covenant theology. They don't mix. Old Covenant theology is dead.

 

[Logikos]

The biggest problem that most people have with the Bible is that they try to mix Old Covenant theology with New Covenant theology. They don't mix. Old Covenant theology is dead.

Covenant Theology is false to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out. However, it is true that mixing what God was doing with Israel with what God is doing with the whole world today, is indeed the biggest problem that the church has had practically from day one!

(I've assumed, but do not know for certain, that your use of the terms "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant" were intended to be in reference to "Covenant Theology", by the way.)

 

[Robert Pate]

Covenant Theology is false to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out. However, it is true that mixing what God was doing with Israel with what God is doing with the whole world today, is indeed the biggest problem that the church has had practically from day one!

(I've assumed, but do not know for certain, that your use of the terms "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant" were intended to be in reference to "Covenant Theology", by the way.)

You just happen to be one that does not understand or refuses to believe what happened when God abolished the Old Covenant of works, laws and religion, Ephesians 2:15. And established his new covenant of faith, grace and the Gospel.

 

[Logikos]

You just happen to be one that does not understand or refuses to believe what happened when God abolished the Old Covenant of works, laws and religion, Ephesians 2:15. And established his new covenant of faith, grace and the Gospel.

On the contrary. I understand it very well. Covenant Theology is flatly false. It is just Calvinism by another name (more or less) and it is flawed from its first premise.

 

[Spyder]

That presupposed normal logical reasoning. Put in the form of a syllogism, it goes basically like this...

The Bible is true.
XYZ contradict the bible.
Therefore, XYZ doctrine is false. (Law of contradiction.)
QED

If God need not be rational, then this would not apply.


That would be a rash judgment because there very definitely are statements in scripture that conflict with each other. That's just a plain fact and it isn't a problem unless we try to ignore the conflict and simplistically and irrationally declare both conflicting passages to be true without caveat or explanation. In other words, it is only a problem if we abandon sound reason!

Thus, once again, if God need not be rational, this also would not apply.


"entirety" is a redundancy and the statement itself a self-contradictory statement.

It is itself a doctrine that cannot be validated by scripture.


They are just fine but it misses the point.

The point is that you cannot except the idea that God need not be rational because God is the source of all reason. More than that, He IS Reason. In just the same sense that God is Love, God is Reason. Both concepts derive their meaning from the very person of God Himself. If God is irrational, there could be no such thing as reason and there is no such thing as an irrational truth - by definition! God is Truth! Therefore God IS rational - by definition. When you posit that God can be irrational you throw away your only means by which to falsify any claim that someone might make and throw open the door to any wild-eyed wacko doctrine that any cult leader want to conjure up!

It seems like you have addressed similar (but not quite the same) statements before.

I believe the original manuscripts, as best that we have them now, are completely true. I have a fairly large compilation of the "errors" that are now found in our bibles. They are often transcribed errors, but I often find that translators have chosen words that are not synonymous with the words found in manuscripts. Then we also have the additions in our bibles that are found only in the "new" manuscripts. I know people that have claimed "the bible says it, and I believe it, so that's it." (They are often those who were once taught something, so now they won't be moved.)

I also believe we can find conflicting passages in our English translations,(and even between copied Septuagints). We must be willing to search for resolutions and let God clear it up for us. However, as I have experienced, there are those who will not let go of the teachings that they had in the past.

Much of the time, our supposed conflicts come from not having performed a lengthy study of the Hebrew culture of a few thousand years ago, the effects of living in a patriarchal society, and the relationships between the land of Abraham and the nations around his.

Since I don't know you, I will not guess whether you possess any of these issues. I can, however, pray that we all are blessed by our open-minded conversations.

 

[Logikos]

It seems like you have addressed similar (but not quite the same) statements before.

I believe the original manuscripts, as best that we have them now, are completely true.

Why?

(I'm not suggesting that they aren't true. I'm asking you why you believe that they are.)

I have a fairly large compilation of the "errors" that are now found in our bibles. They are often transcribed errors, but I often find that translators have chosen words that are not synonymous with the words found in manuscripts. Then we also have the additions in our bibles that are found only in the "new" manuscripts. I know people that have claimed "the bible says it, and I believe it, so that's it." (They are often those who were once taught something, so now they won't be moved.)

I also believe we can find conflicting passages in our English translations,(and even between copied Septuagints). We must be willing to search for resolutions and let God clear it up for us. However, as I have experienced, there are those who will not let go of the teachings that they had in the past.

Much of the time, our supposed conflicts come from not having performed a lengthy study of the Hebrew culture of a few thousand years ago, the effects of living in a patriarchal society, and the relationships between the land of Abraham and the nations around his.

Since I don't know you, I will not guess whether you possess any of these issues. I can, however, pray that we all are blessed by our open-minded conversations.

Understanding the original languages and being familiar with the original texts themselves as well as the Septuagint, et al has it's advantages and is profitable but it is not the key to understanding the bible. Such things are needed for scholars but not for the regular folks.

The fact is that we do not have the originals and the oldest copies we do have are centuries older than the originals and there is no disputing that even those oldest copies contain errors of various kinds and are somewhat inconsistent with each other. By this we can conclude that God has not supernaturally protected the precise text of scripture and by that we can conclude that having a precisely perfect copy isn't needed. It is the message of the bible that needs to be preserved, not every jot and tittle.

The bible is a very thick book. Some have said that it's thickness is in relationship to the thickness of people's skulls and I think there is some truth to that sentiment. The message of scripture is preserved by its redundancy. One incorrect letter or word here or there is not going to be sufficient to prevent the massage from being clearly communicated. The same message is communicated regardless of which language it is translated in. Even translations of translations manage to produce a document that is sufficient to communicate the gospel and to get people saved, which is the most critical point of the whole book.

 

[ChristisGod]

I think it takes a real effort to not pay attention to these passages.

They are clearly stated, plainly understood, and directly refute Calvinish doctrine.

Much love!

I should know lol

 

[Spyder]

Why?

(I'm not suggesting that they aren't true. I'm asking you why you believe that they are.)


Understanding the original languages and being familiar with the original texts themselves as well as the Septuagint, et al has it's advantages and is profitable but it is not the key to understanding the bible. Such things are needed for scholars but not for the regular folks.

The fact is that we do not have the originals and the oldest copies we do have are centuries older than the originals and there is no disputing that even those oldest copies contain errors of various kinds and are somewhat inconsistent with each other. By this we can conclude that God has not supernaturally protected the precise text of scripture and by that we can conclude that having a precisely perfect copy isn't needed. It is the message of the bible that needs to be preserved, not every jot and tittle.

The bible is a very thick book. Some have said that it's thickness is in relationship to the thickness of people's skulls and I think there is some truth to that sentiment. The message of scripture is preserved by its redundancy. One incorrect letter or word here or there is not going to be sufficient to prevent the massage from being clearly communicated. The same message is communicated regardless of which language it is translated in. Even translations of translations manage to produce a document that is sufficient to communicate the gospel and to get people saved, which is the most critical point of the whole book.

I agree with you. Don't let that come as a shock....

Only my imagination serves to tell me that God did not provide the originals of those writing because He wants us to diligently search for His truth. The first step in that search is to shut down our egos and open our eats to the teaching from God's spirit within. Brother, it was not at all easy for me. And - I still have to remind myself that anything I was taught years ago may need validation by God.

 

[amigo de christo]

I agree with you. Don't let that come as a shock....

Only my imagination serves to tell me that God did not provide the originals of those writing because He wants us to diligently search for His truth. The first step in that search is to shut down our egos and open our eats to the teaching from God's spirit within. Brother, it was not at all easy for me. And - I still have to remind myself that anything I was taught years ago may need validation by God.

Ask barney fife to bring a picture of that boy he once had on his avatar .
Its odd indeed that the very picture you have in your avatar looks like the man version of said boy .
Ask barney to bring that picture he once had , i think the boy had on a yellow striped shirt
I almost thought you were barney fife .

 

[Spyder]

Ask barney fife to bring a picture of that boy he once had on his avatar .
Its odd indeed that the very picture you have in your avatar looks like the man version of said boy .
Ask barney to bring that picture he once had , i think the boy had on a yellow striped shirt
I almost thought you were barney fife .

Well, this picture goes back some years. I guess I still have enough concern about my appearance that I don't show anyone what I look like now. I wouldn't want to scare anyone.

 

[Robert Pate]

Well, this picture goes back some years. I guess I still have enough concern about my appearance that I don't show anyone what I look like now. I wouldn't want to scare anyone.

We are more interested in what you believe, than in what you look like.