Election being according to foreknowledge

[Greektim]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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!

 

[Revmitchell]

I've made this point many times, but I haven't received much of a response.

So what are you looking for here?

 

[Greektim]

So what are you looking for here?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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!

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems to me that it is somewhat redundant to talk about foreknowledge given that God is omniscient!

And you believe those are two different things?

 

[Greektim]

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.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

Prooftexting that misses the context is incorrect. Case and point the verse I am talking about.

"Prooftexting" is then not the issue, the issue is using scripture out of context. This drum beat about prooftexting is absurd.

And you apparently missed the point of the thread.

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.

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 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?

 

[Greektim]

"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?

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?

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

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?

 

[Greektim]

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?

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

WD,

Foreknowledge is figurative as there is no "fore" with an omnipresent I AM.

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.

 

[OldRegular]

And you believe those are two different things?

I believe what I posted! With emphasis!

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!

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!

 

[Revmitchell]

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!

Define foreknowledge and who are these Arminians?

 

[webdog]

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.

For a God who exists in all points of time simultaneously there still is no pre or fore.

 

[Revmitchell]

For a God who exists in all points of time simultaneously there still is no pre or fore.

Make sure when you get to heaven you let Peter know. I am sure he will be grieved he misrepresented God.