Election being according to foreknowledge

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Greektim, Sep 10, 2012.

  1. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    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.
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    In my opinion "foreknowledge" as it relates to the "omniscience of God" has nothing to do with election. The choice of some to Salvation is by the Grace of God, is clearly taught in Scripture, and will remain incomprehensible to man. Let God be God!
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    So what are you looking for here?
     
  4. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Many opposed to Calvinism say that election is according to foreknowledge (prescience view) seeking to refute the unconditionality of God's election. God elected based on his pleasure. But the non-calvie will say that god elected based on his foreknowing future events. But if this verse says nothing about foreknowledge as the basis for election, then this is no longer a prooftext that can be posited to rail this accusation.
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    Doesn't the very term used for 'foreknowledge" imply that God is basing that upon having established a relationship with other party? IE, that its based upon Him knowing them since he is the One that elected them?
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    So you believe that God's election being based on pleasure is diametrically opposed to being on foreknowledge?


    And everyone uses prooftext I don't care who you are. If you don't you cannot make use of scripture to support your position.
     
    #6 Revmitchell, Sep 10, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2012
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    It seems to me that it is somewhat redundant to talk about foreknowledge, in the sense that some of Arminian persuasion do, given that God is omniscient!
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    And you believe those are two different things?
     
  9. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    Prooftexting that misses the context is incorrect. Case and point the verse I am talking about. And you apparently missed the point of the thread. However you define foreknowledge, 1 Peter 1:1-2 does not likely at all say that it is the basis for God's election.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    "Prooftexting" is then not the issue, the issue is using scripture out of context. This drum beat about prooftexting is absurd.


    Statements like "you missed the point of the thread" is what makes Calvinists come across so arrogant. Take some time and relax before posting and not just explode out of anger.


    How do you define it, and what in this verse do you see as being based on foreknowledge? Something in that verse is what is it?
     
  11. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    How you read anger in that post is beyond me. Sounds like a pot/kettle thing if you ask me. You've been pretty accusatory. The very nature of your questions demonstrate that you are missing the point. I'm not asking to define foreknowledge. This is a syntactical question. I want to know how someone can come away with the assumption that "elect" is "according to foreknowledge" in 1 Peter 1.

    I am not sure I can offer an adequate definition. Not my strong suite. I do better discussing what it is not. But I don't think I am astute enough to give a good working definition.

    However, your last sentence is mysterious. What are you asking?



    PS - saw the thread title was changed. WINMAN, where are you?
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Something in that is verse is according to foreknowledge. What is it?

    If you are going to start a discussion about foreknowledge but do not know what it is then your ability to discuss it is inept at best. I am puzzled at how you believe that you can engage this subject?
     
  13. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    BECAUSE... as I said, this is not a discussion to define foreknowledge, this is a discussion to speak on the syntax of the verse. Those are two totally different things.

    Now I could offer some pat answer for foreknowledge. Its not like I can't produce anything. I just don't like any of my answers. You could say the jury is still out for me. However, since not much rests on the definition for my point of argumentation, then it doesn't really matter. But if you want to keep beating this dead horse, I'll give you something.

    Again... this thread is more about syntax than it is lexis.

    As for identifying what the prepositional phrase reaches back to, there is nothing in the text that convinces either way. I think it least likely to refer to "elect" however. I posited 4 or 5 options in the OP.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    If you do not know what it means then you cannot intelligently speak to what it is not referring to.

    And if you do not know what it is referring to then you cannot intelligently speak to what it is not referring to.


    Trying to understand "syntax" without first trying to grab a solid hold of definition is just odd.
     
  15. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    You won't understand foreknowledge until you understand who the elect are. Peter (the apostle to the jews) is addressing the jews of the dispersion. The elect here are jews...the same ones the Lord refers to having chosen between Jacob and Esau and before they were old enough to do anything good or bad that His purpose of election might stand. Foreknowledge is figurative as there is no "fore" with an omnipresent I AM.
     
  16. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    WD,
    It is not speaking about what God knows....but WHOM...


    Foreknowledge, Is actual for all of the elect.It is so because God has known and predestined each and everyone of them...individually..


    For WHOM....He did Foreknow....He also did predestinate

    Unbelievers are not predestined to be conformed to the Image of the Son.
     
  17. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I believe what I posted! With emphasis!

    If God is omniscient it is redundant to talk about foreknowledge or foreknew as meaning God knows the future. That is the way some Arminians believe, apparently!
     
  18. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Define foreknowledge and who are these Arminians?
     
  19. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    For a God who exists in all points of time simultaneously there still is no pre or fore.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Make sure when you get to heaven you let Peter know. I am sure he will be grieved he misrepresented God.
     

Share This Page

Loading...