I've made this point many times, but I haven't received much of a response. I am only calling out Winman because he makes this a prooftext often and most recently to my awareness. Opposing Calvinism often points to 1 Peter 1:1-2 - "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:" My point is, there is no reason (grammatically, syntactically, or otherwise) to assume the prepositional phrase "according to the foreknowledge" is linked to "elect." Foreknowledge can just as easily refer back to (1) the reality that the exiles are exiles, (2) the Dispersion specifically, (3) each location mentioned (as in the dispersion taking place there as opposed to other places) and the people living there. My point is that an exegetical leap is taking place to link "elect" and "according to foreknowledge" when there is so much in between. The nearest antecedent to the prepositional phrase is #3. This argument can be taken the other way too. It could refer past "elect" and back to Peter either being an apostle of Jesus. No matter what, 1 Peter 1:1-2 should not be used as a prooftext used to defend foreknowledge as the basis for election.