Thread: 1 Peter 1, Elect; another Calvinist blunder.
Admin
1 Peter 1, Elect; another Calvinist blunder.
Posted : 20 Apr, 2010 11:07 AM
Let's examine 1 Peter 1:1-2. This passage was grossly mistranslated by Calvinists. The Greek says things very differently.
The NKJV, though one of the best translations we have, as with most English translations is very wrong and affects doctrine in this specific passage.
1Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 ELECT according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
In verse two above we see the word "ELECT". When one who is being honest with the grammar of the Greek Texts examines this passage they will find something very different. The word ELECT or CHOICE is not found in verse two of the Greek but in verse ONE. This is very significant.
Young's Literal Translation is much closer to what the Greek says. [ brackets mine]
1Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the CHOICE [Elect] sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Notice where the word "choice" or Elect is placed. We are not "Elect" according to God's "foreknowledge". The verse is calling the JEWS of the dispersion as being the ELECT or CHOICE. The Calvinist translators placed the word "ELECT" in the wrong location which is HUGE!!! In the Greek the word "Choice" or Elect" is in verse ONE not two. What an incredible blunder or perhaps incredible bias. Nevertheless it is plain wrong and dramatically affects the meaning of the verse which does not support Calvinism.
2 according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied!
"Foreknowledge" is an interesting word and Calvinists have created their own meaning to this word. They would have us believe that it means that God looked into the future and then choze people. The word actually means "having prior knowledge" as in a relationship. A person or people He knew previously. Since the word "ELECT" or Choice sojourners is clearly referring to the NATION OF ISRAEL makes it very clear that foreknowledge is referring to ISRAEL and cannot refer in any way to Gentiles/Christians.
Let's continue with the last phrase of verse 2.
" Grace to you and peace be multiplied!"
This can be correctly placed in the beginning of verse 2 to make it more clear even though it gives the same affect where it is.
2 Grace to you and peace be multiplied according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
You can cross reference Deut 7:6-11 with the above especially 6-7.
Deu 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God HAS CHOOZEN you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples;
8 but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
9 "Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments;
10 and He repays those who hate Him to their face, to destroy them. He will not be slack with him who hates Him; He will repay him to his face.
11 Therefore you shall keep the commandment, the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today, to observe them.
When we examine Romans 8:28,29 & 30 we see the same thing concerning "foreknowledge".
Unfortunately most Calvinists are so bias they will not accept this simple truth.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either no longer be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
only english teachers or greek students in heaven,yeah right,if yo have to go to that kind of lenght to get the truth,then you know right there its not the truth,sorry dude,aint buyin it,nice try though,why dont you discuss the substance of some of these passages instead of tyring to confuse everybody with your exegisis website you are copying from a anti-calvinist freakshow website.
Ifin the NKJV has been found by you to be a incorrect translation...then...maybe refer to a more accurate translation...such as original KJV an cross referance to the Complete Jewish Bible ( Old & New Testament ) also a Hebrew/English Torah translation helps much...xo
Since my childhood, I am being taught that the letter of Peter is addressed to jewish (rooted) society in diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.
See also Gal2:7
... when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was commited unto me as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter ....
So whatever the translation in English. The letter was addressed to and meant to jews and therefore the greeting to its readers refers to them.
I do not understand why you think that anyone would think that "elect" in 1Pet1 refers to gentiles...
the catholic church before the reformation did not allow the people to read the scriptures for themselves,the papacy decided the doctrine for the people,much corruption and obvious heresy,such as being able to buy "indulgences" resulted,Martin Luther protested against this blatent practice,among many others,and broke off from the catholic church.this is where protestants came from,(protest against catholicism)We now have many good translations to choose from and read for ourselves,I dont beleive for a minute that god would allow all of our modern day translations to be corrupted to the point of incoherency.Should we send all our bibles to you to translate for us?I think NOT,If you feel that the KJV or NIV ect. have a calvinist bent to them,well maybe,thats how God wanted it!The lord likes his sovereignty.
Little sidenote (I know I'm a smartass, but I think it to be not so unimportant):
It it protest for: Pro-test. It's even visible in English where it comes from: testify for a thing, so the protestants were no protesting against catholics, bt they were testifying for the gospel as they understood it, in opposition to what the pope and his bishops taught. The name comes from the protestation, where several princes and free cities in the Holy Roman Empire declared to not follow imperial decisions made at the diet in Speyer that claimed catholicism to be right, but to stick to the new teachings of Luther, Zwingli and others,a s this was what they found in the bible.
I find it important, because it shows that protestants are not simply against something, but they have something they consider better and true. It's always easy to reject something, but hard to come up with a better idea. They had the better idea (at least they claimed, Catholics might see this differently here) and didn't just grumble...
I'd love to leave this alone but I can't. First of all it makes no difference where the word Elect is since the Bible wasn;t written in verses. This is a letter written in sentences and paragraphs. You'd think someone as hung up on grammar and rhetoric as you are Wlter would know that. What's mote the word Elect is a title that is for the Chosen. It's a title just like Saints is and in this case it refers to the people to whom the letter is written. They are"strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia"Since they are called strangers and they are in Gentile cities I would say they are Gentiles.
The word Elect means chosen or favorites. The word is eklektos. I an't see how the placement of this word is important. Both verses are one sentence. The placement of Elect is in the right place in the translation. It is a pronoun that refers to the previously mentioned people in the Greek cities the letter is written to. The sentence has the same meaning regardless of the way it is written. At least it does in English.
You haven't proven that this letter is written to Jews. Are we to believe that all the people in the churches in these Gentile cities are Jews? Are you saying that Gentiles are not Elect?
Adam Clarke's commentary states."But the persons to whom the apostle wrote were all, with propriety, said to be elect according to the foreknowledge of God; because, agreeably to the original purpose of God, discovered in the prophetical writings, Jews and Gentiles, indiscriminately, were called to be the visible Church, and entitled to all the privileges of the people of God, on their believing the Gospel. In this sense the word elected is used in other places of Scripture; see 1Th_1:4, and the note there."
John Wesley says, "Elect - By the free love and almighty power of God taken out of, separated from, the world. Election, in the scripture sense, is God's doing anything that our merit or power have no part in. The true predestination, or fore - appointment of God is, He that believeth shall be saved from the guilt and power of sin. He that endureth to the end shall be saved eternally. They who receive the precious gift of faith, thereby become the sons of God; and, being sons, they shall receive the Spirit of holiness to walk as Christ also walked. Throughout every part of this appointment of God, promise and duty go hand in hand. All is free gift; and yet such is the gift, that the final issue depends on our future obedience to the heavenly call. But other predestination than this, either to life or death eternal, the scripture knows not of."
I cannot find any evidence that the Elect are only the Jews.
Question: In Romans 8:29, the text reads "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son..." Does this not therefore suggest that because foreknowledge comes before predestination in the text, then predestination is simply based on God's foreknowledge: because God foreknows or sees in advance (with full and complete knowledge) what a person will do, and who it is that will respond in faith to the Gospel, He simply predestinates those whom He knows ahead of time will believe?
Certainly this is how I understood this passage for many years and it is the way that many deal with the issue of predestination in our day. Previously, I also pointed to 1 Peter 1:1-2 which talks of those who are "chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." and assumed that this verse would add weight to the idea that election and predestination is based on God knowing ahead of time what we will do - God merely chooses those whom He sees ahead of time will choose Him.
At first glance, it certainly seems to be a legitimate interpretation, yet the fact that foreknowledge comes before predestination should in no way surprize us. That's because God would need to foreknow a person He is going to predestinate to something. God does not predestinate unknown persons, but specific individuals whom He knows. So this not really an argument for either side in this debate. In both systems, Arminian and Reformed, foreknowing would need to come before predestination. The real question then is "what exactly does it mean for God to foreknow somebody?"
Actually there are a number of problems with the interpretation in the question, not the least of which is that scripture reveals very clearly, that left to himself, man will always choose against Christ, because of his hostile disposition to God. Man is dead spiritually, and needs his heart of stone to be removed and a heart of flesh put in before he has any interest in seeking the God of the Bible (Rom. 3:11; Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Outside of regeneration, man by nature is the enemy of God.
The interpretation also falls down because the word "foreknew" does not merely mean to know future actions beforehand. It has a much more precise meaning. The word "foreknew" (Greek: proginosko) in Romans 8:29 is a verb rather than a noun. It is an action word, and as the text informs us, it is something done by God. What exactly does God do then? The text says "those whom He foreknew..."
To gain a correct biblical definition of this word foreknew, rather than assume its meaning (which is what many do), we need to do some homework and study. In this case it means we need to go to passages of scripture that have God as the subject of the verbal form, as here in this passage. This is because passages that have humans as the subject would differ substantially in their meaning from the ones where God is the subject, because, I am sure we will all agree, we as creatures "know" things on a very different basis to the way God does.
When we do this we find the verb proginosko is used three times in the New Testament with God as the subject - here in Romans 8:29, then also in Romans 11:2, and lastly in 1 Peter 1:20. This proves to be significant when we ask the question "what, or who is foreknown by God?"
In Romans 8:29, the direct object of the verb is a pronoun that refers back to the called of the previous verse (v. 28). In Romans 11:2 the object the verb is refering to is "His people," and in 1 Peter 1:20, the object is Jesus Christ Himself.
Each reference then portrays God as foreknowing persons rather than actions. 1 Peter 1:20 says, "For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." When God foreknew Christ, did that mean that God simply knew that Jesus would make correct decisions or have faith in His Father? Hardly! It speaks of the Father's personal intimacy and affection for His beloved Son.
To quote Dr. James White in this regard, "to say that God foreknows acts, faith, behavior, choices, etc, is to assume something about the term that is not witnessed in the biblical text. God foreknows persons not things."
How does this relate to what we find in the Old Testament? Well there, we have a similar meaning to the word meaning of "forknew" in the New Testament. This is the Hebrew word "yada." It refers in a number of instances to God's "knowing" of individuals. For instance in Jeremiah 1:5, God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Dr. White comments, "Here God's knowledge of Jeremiah is clearly personal. It is paralleled with the term "consecrated" and "appointed," pointing us toward the element of "choice." This knowledge of Jeremiah is not limited to time. In some manner, God "knew" Jeremiah before Jeremiah came into existence."
We see this same concept in God's "knowing" of Moses. Exodus 33:17 - "The LORD said to Moses, "I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name." Again we see the personal nature of God's knowing of an individual. This refers to a personal intimacy and affection God had for Moses in that he had found favor in the eyes of the Lord. God had chosen Moses to be a recipient of His tender mercy.
I'll quote just one more passage where we see this word yada used to refer to God possessing a personal intimacy and affection. Amos 3:2 in speaking of Israel says, "You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."
The NASB actually translates yada as "chosen," here, and there is a very strong basis by way of context for this word to be translated in this way. Literally it says, "You only (speaking of Israel) have I known..." It should be obvious to us that God didn't merely know about Israel, and possessed no such knowledge of other nations, nor that merely God knew the future actions of Israel, and didn't know the future actions of the other nations. This "knowing" of Israel is deeply personal and intimate and speaks of God's grace in choosing them to be His people for His Sovereign purposes alone. The word yada is used also in Genesis 4:1 when it says that Adam "knew" his wife Eve. The result of this "knowing" was a child, lets remember - revealing a deep personal relationship.
All this is important because it presents a consistent pattern: understanding how the verb is used in the New testament, along with these insights from the Old, provides a very strong basis for understanding what foreknew actually means.
Dr. White states, "When Paul says, "those whom He foreknew" Paul is speaking about an action on God's part that is just as solitary, just as God-centered, and just as personal as every other action in the string: God foreknows (chooses to enter into relationship with); God predestines; God calls; God justifies; God glorifies. From first to last it is God who is active, God who accomplishes all these things."
"Foreknew" therefore does not merely suggest "a passive gathering of infallible knowledge of the future actions of free creatures" but rather reveals that from start to finish, salvation is a Divine accomplishment, for it is God and God alone who saves, to the praise of His glory alone.
To quote Dr. James Montgomery Boice in his comments on Romans 8:29, "the verse does not say that God foreknew what certain of his creatures would do. It is not talking about human actions at all. On the contrary, it is speaking entirely of God and of what God does. Each of these five terms is like that: God foreknew, God predestined, God called, God justified, God glorified. Besides, the object of the divine foreknowledge is not the actions of certain people but the people themselves. In this sense it can only mean that God has fixed a special attention upon them or loved them savingly."
I believe this then is the scriptural answer to the question, but before we move on, lets also look at this from a logical perspective. Many believe in foreknowledge as described in the question (the Arminian view) but this position does not answer the challenge of what God knew from eternity.
What do I mean? Well, as John Hendryx has stated, "if God knew someone would choose hell even before He created them, then this was a fixed certainty (even before their creation), so why did God go ahead and create them? It was obviously, in their view, still within His Providence that these people be lost... or if God already foreknew who would be saved then how can they continue to argue that He is trying to save every man? Certainly God already knows who the persons will be, so why should He send the Holy Spirit to those He knows will reject him." Ultimately, when this view is subjected to scrutiny, it logically undermines the very position it is seeking to assert.
