How, then, is the Calvinist refuted?

[frumanchu]

Yet the Scriptures I cited above in particular do in fact present it as being done individually.

 

[themuzicman]

Actually, you read individual election into them. They don't state that by themselves.

Muz

 

[Rightglory]

Otto,

Foreknowledge doesn't equate with Foreordination, it is a result of foreordination. It(4-ordination) is also called determinate council:

Foreknowledge does not result from foreordination either

 

[Rightglory]

Frumanchu,

Yet the Scriptures I cited above in particular do in fact present it as being done individually.

Quite contrary. They are all group, or corporate. Cygnus just quoted very early Church Fathers who refuted the concept of predestination of individuals. The very small word, "in" sinks that concept. It is IN CHRIST, the elect, the chosen.
In all of scripture there is ONLY one way to be IN Christ. That is to believe. The same quotes that Cygnus used express this fact quite clearly.
The most vivid of that is this text:

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Thess 2:13

No matter how you try to twist it, you cannot make the object of choosing in the above Scriptures be anything but individuals without doing radical violence to the Word of God.

Then you are the one doing the violence, since it has not been that way since at least Justin and Ignatius.

There is indeed a corporate aspect to election, but it is not at the exclusion of the individual. Anyone saying otherwise is not preaching the truth of the Word.

Who might that be, surely not Ignatius, Justin.

 

[cygnusx1]

Clements Alexandrinus. A.D. 190.
Clement of Alexandria, of an heathen philosopher became a Christian, was a presbyter of the church at Alexandria, and, after Pantaenus, was master of the school in that place.[1] Several of his works are still extant, some of which were written a little after the death of Commodus the emperor, which, according to Clement[2] himself, was A.D. 194, but according to the vulgar æra, A.D. 192,[3] in which,
1. He clearly asserts the doctrine of election in many places, for he not only speaks of the people of God, under the character of elect; as when from a book called Pastor,the author of which was Hermas, and thought to be the same the apostle Paul makes mention of Romans 16:14, he says,[4] "that virtue which holds the church together is faith, by which oi eklektoi tou Qeou, "the elect of God are saved." And in another place,[5] "the generation of them that seek him is, to genov to eklekton, "the elect nation." And elsewhere,[6] "not the place, but to aqroisma twn eklektwn, "the congregation of the elect, I call the church." I say, he not only speaks often after this manner, but of them as a special, distinct number, predestinated and chosen of God, whom it is his will to save; accordingly he says,[7] "as his will is his work, and this is called the world, so his will is the salvation of men, kai touto ekklhsia keklet ai, "and this is called the church." And again,[8] "If they also had known the truth, they would have all leaped into the way, ekloge de ouk an en,"and there would have been no election." And in another place,[9] "It is not convenient that all should understand, that is, the meaning of the scriptures, lest taking the things which are wholesomely said by the Holy Spirit, otherwise, they should prove hurtful; wherefore tois eklektois ton anthropon,"to those that are chosen from among men," and to them that are through faith admitted to knowledge, the holy mysteries of the prophecies which are preserved are hid in parables." And elsewhere,[10] "according to the fitness which every one has, He, that is, God, distributes his benefits both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians; kai tois ek touton proorismenois,"and to them who are predestinated from among them, and are in his own time called, faithful, and elect."
2. It is evident that Clement held, that the predestination of men to everlasting life was from eternity, or before the world began, as appears from the following passages; having cited Jeremiah 1:5, 7, Do not say, I am a child; before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee,etc., his note upon it is,[11] "this prophecy intimates unto us, tous pro kataboles kosmou eis pistin egnosmenous Theo,"that those who before the foundation of the world are known by God unto faith; that is, are appointed by him to faith, are now babes, because of the will of God lately fulfilled, as we are new-born unto vocation and salvation." Yea, he says, that the Christians were before the world was; for speaking of several nations who boasted of antiquity, he observes,[12] that "none of them was before this world; but pro de tes tou kosmou kataboles emeis,"verily we were before the foundation of the world, who, that we ought to be, were first born in God;" we are the rational formations of God the Word, di on archaizomen, "by whom we have antiquity; for the Word was in the beginning;"which must be meant of their being chosen in Christ from everlasting. And in another place,[13] "It is not becoming, that a friend of God, on proorisen o Theos pro kataboles kosmou eis ten akran egkatalegenai uiothesian, "whom God has predestinated before the foundation of the world, to be put into the high adoption of children, should fall into pleasures or fears, and be unemployed in repressing the passions." And elsewhere,[14] "what voice should he expect, who according to his purpose knows, ton eklekton kai pro tes geneseos,the elect even before his birth, and that which shall be, as though it was?" To which I shall add one passage more, where he says,[15] that "such are gathered together by one Lord tous ede katatetagmenous, ous proorisen o Theos dikaious esomenou pro kateboles kosmou egnokos,who are already ordained, whom God hath predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous." This passage is indeed referred to by Dr. Whitby,[16] in favor of a conditional, and against absolute predestination; but Clement might very well say, agreeable to the absolute scheme, that God predestinated men to glory, knowing they would be righteous; because he ordained them to be righteous, and determined to make them so. He does not say, that he foreknew that they would be righteous of themselves, and therefore predestinated them to happiness, which only would serve the conditional scheme. Besides, neither he, nor any of the ancients, ever said, that God foreknowing men would be righteous, predestinated them to be so; but foreknowing they would be righteous, because he determined they should be, he predestinated them to happiness. There are two or three more passages of this writer referred to by Dr. Whitby,[17] as opposing the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation, which, as has been before observed concerning some others, from Justin and Irenaeus, more properly belong to the doctrine of free will; and if Clement has said some things which look that way, it need not be much wondered at, since both he and his master Pantaenus had been addicted to the stoic philosophy; which they might find some difficulty to get clear of, and so might be mixed by them with the Christian scheme, as it is plain it too much was in the school of Alexandria.
ENDNOTES:

[1]​

Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccl. s. 48.​

[2]​

Stromat. l.1, p. 340.​

[3]​

Vide Dallmi Apolog. part 4, p. 760.​

[4]​

Stromat. 50:2, p. 384.​

[5]​

Ibid. 50:7, p. 733.​

[6]​

Ibid. p. 715.​

[7]​

Praedagog. 50:1, c. 6, p. 93.​

[8]​

Stromat. 50:4, p. 505.​

[9]​

Ibid. 50:6, p. 677.​

[10]​

Ibid. 50:7, p. 702, 703.​

[11]​

Paedadog. 50:1, c. 7, p. 111.​

[12]​

Admon. ad Gentes. p. 5.​

[13]​

Stromat. 50:6, p. 652.​

[14]​

Ibid. 50:7, p. 721.​

[15]​

Ibid. p. 765.​

[16]​

Discourse on the Five Points, p. 98; ed. 2. 97.​

[17]​

Ibid. p. 96; ed. 2. 95.​

 

[cygnusx1]

Tertullian. A.D. 200.
Tertullian was by birth an African, of the city of Carthage, his father was a Proconsular Centurion; he flourished in the times of Severus, and Antoninus Caracalla, about the beginning of the third century. He was a presbyter of the church, and one of the first of the Latin writers among the Christians. He wrote much, and many of his works remain to this day,[1] in which we have at least some hints of his being acquainted with the doctrines of election and reprobation. In one of his books,[2] speaking of the different crowns which men of different orders were honored with, he addresses the Christian after this manner, "But thine order and thy magistracy, and the name of thy court is the church of Christ: thou art his, conscriptus in libris vitae, written in the books of life."And in another place,[3] treating of heretics, he says, their were wits of spiritual wickedness, with whom we and the brethren wrestle; the necessary articles of faith merit our contemplation, ut electi manifestentur, ut reprobi detegantur;that the elect may be manifested, that the reprobate may be detected." And elsewhere,[4] having cited Isaiah 40:5, 6, he makes this remark, "he distinguishes the issues of things, not substances; for who does not place the judgment of God in a twofold sentence of salvation and punishment? Wherefore all flesh is grass,quae igni destinatur, which is appointed to the fire, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God;quae saluti ordinatur, which is ordained to salvation."And as he says upon another account,[5] "there can be no election without reprobation." He has indeed a passage, which seems to make election dependent upon the works of men; his words are these,[6] "What man is there without sin that God should always choose him whom he never could refuse? Or who likewise without any good work, that God should always refuse him, whom he never could choose? Show a man that is always good, and he will not be refused; show one that is always evil, and he will never be chosen." Hence the learned Scultetus[7] charges him with being erroneous in the doctrine of predestination. But this is but a single passage, and seems only to regard the different dispensations of divine providence towards good and bad men, on account of which God was censured by the Marcionites, and charged with levity and inconstancy, and not an election to grace and glory.
Dr. Whitby[8] has a single reference to this writer, which, as the rest that have been before observed, falls under the head of free will, and will be there considered with them.
ENDNOTES:

[1]​

Vide Hieron. Catalog. Ecclesiastes s. 63.​

[2]​

De Corona, c. 13, p. 129; ed. Paris, 1634.​

[3]​

De Praescript. Haeret. c. 38, p. 246.​

[4]​

De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 59. p. 427.​

[5]​

Ad Nationes, 50:1, c. 10. p. 55.​

[6]​

Adv. Marcion. 50:2, c. 23, p. 471.​

[7]​

Medull. Patrum, part 1, 50:7, c. 42, p. 243.​

[8]​

Discourse, etc. p. 96; ed. 2. 95.​

 

[cygnusx1]

Origenus Alexandrinus. A.D. 230.
Origen[1] of Alexandria, sometimes surnamed Adamantius, was born about A.D. 185; his father’s name was Leonidas, who suffered martyrdom, A.D. 202. He succeeded Clement in the school of Alexandria, was ordained a presbyter at Caesarea about A.D. 228, and died at Tyre, A.D. 253. He wrote much, and many things are still extant under his name, great part of which are only translations by Rufinus, who took great liberty in altering and interpolating his works; so that it is not easy to know when we read Origen, or when Rufinus. Perhaps many of the errors and mistakes he is charged with may be owing to the ill usage he has met with this way. It is said to be a tenet of his, that souls pre-existed in another state; and that according as they behaved themselves in the other world, they either obtained the order of angels, or were thrust down to the earth, and united to bodies predestinated either to life or death, according to their past merits, which he sometimes calls,[2] preceding causes and more ancient ones. This notion of his is mentioned by Jerome,[3] and rejected by him; who rightly observes, that men are chosen in Christ, not because they were or had been holy, but that they might be so. Origen’s sentiments on this head were very peculiar, and are not allowed of on either side of the question before us; and therefore passages of this kind are very injudiciously cited by Dr. Whitby,[4] in this controversy. Indeed it cannot be denied, but that there are other passages in[5] the writings of this father which countenance the doctrine of predestination, upon the foresight of man’s future purposes, desires, and actions in this life, which do not accord with his above notion, and shows either that he contradicts himself, or has not had justice done him. And though one might not expect to meet with any thing in favor of the absolute and unconditional scheme in such a writer, yet there are several things said by him which agree with it. And,

1. He agrees with us in his sentiments of prescience and predetermination in general; he held, that nothing comes by chance, but that all things are appointed by God; yea, that the case of lots is not fortuitous, but according to divine predestination. Thus, speaking of the division of the land of Canaan to the Israelites, he has these words,[6] "Upon casting lots the inheritance is distributed to the people of God, and the lot moved, non.616 fortuitu, sed secundum hoc quod praedestinatum est a Deo,"not by chance, but according to what is predestinated by God." His sense of the prescience of God is,[7] that "foreknowledge is not the cause of things future, but the truth he says is, that to esomenon aition tou toian di einai ten peri antou prognosin,that a thing being future, is the cause of God’s foreknowledge of it; for not because it is known it is future, but because it will be, therefore it is known." To the same propose he says in another place,[8] "Not therefore any thing will be because God knows it to be future, but because it is future it is known by God before it comes to pass." Which entirely accords with what we assert, that God did not decree any thing because he foresaw it, but he foresaw it because he decreed it.​

2. He gives plain intimations, as if he thought that there was a certain number of men chosen by God, and given to Christ. By the elect in Matthew 24:30, who will be gathered together from the four winds, he understands[9] "all that are loved by God the Father, and preserved in Christ Jesus." God, he says,[10] is indeed the God of all, tes ekloges esti Theos, He is the God of the election, and much more of the Savior of the election." And elsewhere mentioning these words in John 17:5. And now, Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was;he makes this observation,[11] "the world here is to be understood of our world above the earth, apo gar toutou tou kosmou edoke to uio o pater anthropous,for out of this world the Father hath given men to the Son, for whom alone the Savior prays the Father, and not for the whole world of men.""And again may it be enquired, he says,[12] whether all men may be called the servants of this king, or some truly whom he foreknew and predestinated?"
3. He asserts a predestination to grace, and particularly to faith, which is not consistent with predestination, upon a foresight of it. In one of his books he has these words;[13] "It seems that the knowledge of God is greater than to be comprehended by human nature, hence are so many mistakes in men concerning God, but by the goodness and love of God to man, and through wondrous and divine grace, the knowledge of God comes epi tous prognosei Theou pronatalephsthentas,to them who were before comprehended in the foreknowledge of God; or, according to the version of Gelenius, who to this were predestinated."And in another part of his works, speaking of the conjunction of angels to men, and their care of them, he says,[14] that "an angel begins from the time of a man’s conversion and faith to be joined to prognosthenti kata ton de ton chronon pisteuein kai proristhenti,to him that is foreknown and preordained to believe at that, even at that very time;" which shows that he held, that some are predestinated to believe, and that at a certain time; and so it has been, and is, that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
4. It is also manifest, from a certain passage of his, that he held that election does not spring from men’s works, but from the mere will and pleasure of God; his words are these;[15] "All these things look this way, that the apostle may prove this;" That if either Isaac or Jacob, for their merits, had been chosen to those things which they, being in the flesh sought after, and, by the works of the flesh, had deserved to be justified; then the grace of their merit might belong to the posterity of flesh and blood also, but now, since, electio eorum non ex operibus facta sit, sed ex proposito Dei, ex vocantis arbitro,"their election does not arise from works, but from the purpose of God, from the will of him that calleth;" the grace of the promise is not fulfilled in the children of the flesh, "but in the children of God; that is, such, who likewise, as they, may be ex proposito elegantur,chosen by the purpose of God, and adopted for sons."
ENDNOTES:

[1]​

Vide Fabricii Bibl. Graec. 50:5, c. 1, s. 26, p. 213.​

[2] Origen. Philocal. c. 21. p. 65. Heri Arcwn, 50:2, c. 9, fol. 133; 50:3, c. 1, fol. 142, etc.; 3, fol. 145; and c. 5, fol. 148.

[3]​

Hieron. ad Avitum, tom. 2. p. 51; L. adv. Ruffin. Apolog. p. 68, M. 69; B. Comment. in Ephesians p. 90, C. D. E.​

[4]​

Discourse, etc. p. 98; ed. 2. 96, 97.​

[5] Vide Origin, in Rom.p. 424, 425; ed. Huet. in Numbers tom. 1:fol. 117; in Romans 1:1, fol. 133, tom. in. & 50:7, fol. 191, 192.

[6]​

In Josuam Homil. 23, fol. 173, H.​

[7]​

Comment. in Genesis p. 8.​

[8]​

In Romans 1:7, fol. 199, E.​

[9]​

In Matthew Homil. 30, fol. 62, B.​

[10]​

Comment. in Joannem, p. 48.​

[11]​

Com. in Matthew p. 326.​

[12]​

Ibid. p. 345.​

[13]​

Contra cells. 1. 7, p. 361, 362.​

[14]​

Comment. in Matthew p. 332.​

[15]​

In Rom.l. 7, fol. 195, G.​

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

Three more that don't support your view of predestination. Clement, Origin and Tertullian. None of them are saints either, but for different views than predestination which they are still all in line. This view, by the way, has not changed throughout history. It is still the view of the Orthodox.

Keep trying Cygnus. Eventually you will get to Augustine, but that is not Calvinism either.

 

[Rick Otto]

Otto,
Foreknowledge does not result from foreordination either

"foreknowledge is not the cause of things future, but the truth he says is, that to esomenon aition tou toian di einai ten peri antou prognosin,that a thing being future, is the cause of God’s foreknowledge of it; for not because it is known it is future, but because it will be, therefore it is known."

 

[themuzicman]

Actually, it is because of either:

A) The future already exists or
B) The future has no contingency

That EDF is possible.

In either case, free will is not possible.

Muz

 

[Ben johnson]

We can discuss "early church fathers" --- but we have the same Scripture they did; and better, we have lexicons, search ability, commentaries, cross-references. If a founding-father is found in conflict with Scripture, Scripture must prevail.

In places where Scripture seems vague, commentary is useful; but where it's clear, the commentary must be subordinate. I mean no offense; I'm sure my Calvinist brothers agree in principle --- it is the purpose of debate to demonstrate "clarity in Scripture".

Each of the "predestinary passages" (Eph1:1-4, Rom9:11-21, Rom8:28-29 for instance) can be shown to accommodate "Responsible Grace". But there are many verses asserting responsibility, which can never accommodate "Reformed Theology".

 

[frumanchu]

Actually, it is because of either:

A) The future already exists or
B) The future has no contingency

That EDF is possible.

In either case, free will is not possible.

Muz

FALSE. This proceeds under the false presupposition that for the will to be truly free it must not only be free from coercion but also free from the bounds of basic logic.

If something is foreknown then that event necessarily comes to pass NOT because the foreknowledge itself has any causal influence upon that event, but because of the law of non-contradiction. What you're advocating is not that the will be free to choose what it wants, but rather than the will be free from the law of non-contradiction.

 

[drstevej]

Ben,

Question.

You said your forthcoming book would be the end of Calvinism... how come after years of your long posts (13,000+) on this site you have not ended Calvinism here?

Just curious?
Steve

 

[frumanchu]

Each of the "predestinary passages" (Eph1:1-4, Rom9:11-21, Rom8:28-29 for instance) can be shown to accommodate "Responsible Grace". But there are many verses asserting responsibility, which can never accommodate "Reformed Theology".

False. They have been shown to be perfectly compatible with Reformed Theology.

"Responsible Grace" on the other hand requires ignorance of basic hermeneutical principles and a selective aversion to historical and Scriptural context to even present an appearance of compatibility.

 

[themuzicman]

You really need to read my Romans 9 thread. Romans 9 is NOT about predestination or individual election.

Muz

 

[Ben johnson]

You said your forthcoming book would be the end of Calvinism... how come after years of your long posts (13,000+) on this site you have not ended Calvinism here?

Just curious?

I'm not sure of the reason, Steve. The "smoking-guns" alone, overturn Calvinism.

One of which, is Paul's words in 1Cor9:27; to continue in "predestinational perspective", one must contend that Paul is only speaking of heavenly REWARDS, and not "eternity itself". This is not credible; the concept of "imperishable wreath", and "run that you may win", and "lest I MYSELF be disqualified", only works in an "eternal life" sense. Further, the connection between verse 1:9:27 and 2:13:5, is clear; we are to examine ourselves to see if WE are in Christ, lest WE be "disqualifed".

Another "smoking-gun", is Jesus' rebuke of the three cities of Bethsaida, Capernaum, and Chorazin. "If Tyre and Sidon had seen what YOU have seen, THEY would have repented; had SODOM seen the miracles you have seen, I tell you THEY would have remained until today. It will go better for THEM in the Judgment, than for you...." Matt11:21-24

Why is there a harsher judgment, if their "rebellion" was predestined? Why would they be rebelling unless they WERE unpredestined (in which case, Jesus would not condemn them for being sovereignly-unchosen by God.)

Another "smoking gun", is Jesus' rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees, Matt23:13; "Not only do YOU not enter in, but those who are entering, you STOP. You SHUT OFF the kingdom of Heaven from men!"

Once again, to continue in thinking "predestination", one must either understand "not REALLY entering", or "not REALLY shut off". The second has been answered here, with: "There's nothing in Jesus' words that denies the possibility of their entering at some point in the FUTURE that God has sovereignly CHOSEN". "Shut off", therefore becomes "not REALLY shut off if they're PREDESTINED" (which ruins the reason for Jesus' words).

...so that "not really", is how all of these passages are understood by Calvinists. "Not really disqualified from eternity, but only at risk of loss-of-crowns" (there is a position of "disqualified/sinful/carnal SAVED"?); "not really judged more harshly, 'cause repentance is God's SOVEREIGN CHOICE"; "not really entering or not really shut off".

So, with sincere respect and regard for you, brother Steve, why does Calvinism still persist?

 

[Rick Otto]

"...lest I MYSELF be disqualified", only works in an "eternal life" sense."

No, it only works in an eternal reward sense, because eternal life is given mercifully without merit, it is not a prize going to only one, the fastest of some others. The race is for the crown of superlative service.

 

[drstevej]

So, with sincere respect and regard for you, brother Steve, why does Calvinism still persist?

God is sovereign.

Calvinism rightly ascribes to God the sovereignty that He has eternally possessed. So it isn't that Calvinism persists. He was sovereign long before Calvin was conceived.

I became a Calvinist by reading the Bible not by reading Calvin. THAT is the key factor.

 

[Ben johnson]

"...lest I MYSELF be disqualified", only works in an "eternal life" sense."

No, it only works in an eternal reward sense, because eternal life is given mercifully without merit, it is not a prize going to only one, the fastest of some others. The race is for the crown of superlative service.

No one says that "eternal life is given to merit". On what grounds can you assert that "imperishable wreath", does not mean "eternal life"? In answering that, how do you disassociate 2Cor13:5 from the context? Both passages use "adokimos". One refers to Paul, the other to US.

Does 2Cor13:5 somehow not mean "WE can find ourselves 'not-in-Christ', 'disqualified' "?

Thanx in advance for your answer.

 

[Ben johnson]

God is sovereign.

Hi, Steve. How, Scripturally, would "God-being-sovereign", preclude God's ability to sovereignly offer salvation to all who WILL believe? It all gets back to which sequence of "faith" and "election", doesn't it?

Calvinism rightly ascribes to God the sovereignty that He has eternally possessed.

"Rightly"? We debate here to support which of our views is, Scripturally, "rightly".

So it isn't that Calvinism persists. He was sovereign long before Calvin was conceived.

How do you answer the verses I cited in my previous post?

If you're game, let's deal with another "smoking gun".

Jesus: "Thomas, you believe because you see? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe." Jn20:29

Is "believing", in Jesus' words, tied to "seeing"? What does "because" mean?

If all "saving-belief" is predestined, why does Jesus praise unseen belief over seen belief?

Unseen belief is clearly greater that seen-belief. Why? Is belief, the consequence of God's sovereign choice, or not?

Look also at how Jesus rebukes the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. He tells them that it Tyre, and Sidon, and even SODOM had seen what THEY have seen, those cities would have BELIEVED. Why would the contemporary cities (who had seen Jesus) be judged more harshly than those others (who had not seen Jesus)? How could this not be a rebuke towards repentance?

Please show me how "God is sovereign", answers what all these verses assert.

I became a Calvinist by reading the Bible not by reading Calvin. THAT is the key factor.

OK, we're reading the Bible, now. What are you thinking, as you read the verses I've just cited?