MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 206
(4/17/02 8:41 am) Reply
1 Peter 2
1 Peter 1:1-5 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (KJV)
Often times verse 2 is quoted to try to deny that God is sovereign in election. The idea is that God the Father has elected a "class" of people, or has ordained a "plan," and that He simply has knowledge of who will be in this class, or follow this plan, in advance. Thus, election is actually an act of man's will, and only involves passive knowledge on God's part.
Can Peter's words; "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," be made to bare the weight of that interpretation? I do not believe that they can be.
Firstly, when we look at the passage itself, we notice that "foreknowledge" is only part of a larger sequence:
Elect: For what reason?
1) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
Elect: How?
2) through sanctification of the Spirit
Elect: To what end?
3) unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ
The act of election cannot be based on "foreseen faith," because surely faith is included in the "obedience and sprinkling of the blood," and that is the purpose (the design, the end, etc.) of election--not the basis (reason, cause, etc.) of it.
The setting apart ("sanctification," KJV) of the Spirit only comes after election, it cannot be the result of Christ's death offered to all men, in hopes they will muster the "obedience" to lay hold of the "sprinkling of the blood," by faith.
Further, when we look at Peter's specific use of the word prognwsin ("foreknowledge," KJV). Peter uses it in the same sense as the Suptuagint translators did, having the same Hellenistic-Jewish background; to speak of a relationship, not merely passive knowledge (Cf. Rom. 11:2). You will find the Old Testament (even our English renderings; "known" etc.) replete with this use of the term. Jeremiah was "known" and "sanctified" from before he was formed in the womb (Jer. 1:5); sexual relationship was also connoted by a cognate term (Gen. 24:16, etc.). Cf. Peter's use of the word in his sermon at Acts 2:23; also Acts 15:18.
Peter uses the same expression in another place in the same chapter:
v. 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (KJV)
The words proegnwsmenou men are rendered by "Who verily was foreordained" in our version. The same word is used here as we saw in v. 2, where our version renders it "foreknowledge." This ambiguity creates a false understanding of v. 2; especially in light of the assumption that modern readers bring to the text; that "foreknowledge" has the technical or philosophical sense of "knowing before."
Considering the implications that the immediate context have on the interpretation of 1 Peter 1:2, this parallel usage seems to lock our sights on the Hebraical use. The rendering of the philosophers (viz.--"to know before") does not accurately fit the thought of v. 20; "Who was truly know before before the foundation of the world..." makes no sense. The thought is clearly a previous relationship--a fore-ordination--which is also most agreeable to the sense of v. 2.
Taking into account all the considerations, 1 Peter 1:2a is best rendered:
"Elect according to the fore-ordination of God the Father,"
or,
"Elect according to the pre-appointment of God the Father,"
"Elect according to the pre-appointment of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ..."
Cf. 2 Thess. 2:13-14 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Note also in passing that those who are elected "are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation..." and there is no possibility of their ever being lost, unless we are willing to say that God's power to keep us has failed.
-J
S.D.G
Edited by: MonkeeSage at: 4/17/02 9:41:24 am
1) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father "of what?" That they would heed to the calling of their own free will... its not a foreknowledge of "I made you to love me and nothing else..." thats not a foreknowledge but a decree.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 213
(4/17/02 10:41 am) Reply
Re: 1 Peter 2
God doesn't force anyone to love Him, the desire to love Him comes from a regenerated heart, the choice that is made to love Him, based on that desire, is a free choice.
I've already shown in the exposition, above, that you view of "forseen faith" is alien to the passage. It can't be made to fit. The election is UNTO the sprinkling of the blood and obedience, not BECAUSE OF.
Re: 1 Peter 2
God doesn't force anyone to love Him, the desire to love Him comes from a regenerated heart, the choice that is made to love Him, based on that desire, is a free choice.
(YOUR the one that says we don't have free will now me.)
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 217
(4/17/02 1:48 pm) Reply
Re: 1 Peter 2
But you're the one who said I deny freedom of choice, not me. Just because you refuse to listen is no warrant to false representation. I believe in freedom of choice; that human choices are non-coerced, real, and accountable. Read the thread you were involved in called "Why do we do anything..." to see me saying the same thing.
Re: 1 Peter 2
How can you not have free choice without free will... I have the free choice to smoke a joint or not... either way I pick I have used my free will... If i don't pick even then I have used my free will to not pick.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 222
(4/17/02 2:09 pm) Reply
Re: 1 Peter 2
There is no such thing as "free will." It is the invention of 16th century humanists and only exists in words. I already explained my view of freedom of choice, and it does not involve "free will." You are encouraged to read "Why do we do anything..." again.
Re: 1 Peter 2
you asked me in the bible to show you were free will was in a latter post... as if it wasn't in there... now your switching it up again to... oh well it was thought up in the 16th cent. But before you said show me where it says freewill in the bible... as if it wasn't there... well it was so now ya switch up on it...
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 226
(4/17/02 2:19 pm) Reply
Re: 1 Peter 2
We don't have "free will."
Freedom of choice is not "free will."
As was already demonstrated, "free will" is a logically incoherent concept that can't even be put into words, let alone found in the Bible.
I affirm the Biblical concept of freedom of choice.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies