Featured Election being according to foreknowledge

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.