1st Peter 1:2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
Jerry Falwell: “The Greek word for scattered (Gr disapora) means literally ‘to sow through,’ and was a technical term for Jews who lived outside of Palestine. Here it is applied to the Gentile Christians who figuratively were sown throughout the world by God to be a witness for Him. Although they lived in various Roman provinces, Peter looked upon these Christians as strangers, a word that means something like ‘landed immigrants,’ and indicates that they are foreigners to native residents, and that their permanent homeland and citizenship is in heaven. Elect (Gr eklektos) is in verse 1 in the original, and means ‘chosen.’ The implication is that God has purposely placed these Christians in their respective communities to serve Him; they are selected temporary residents who are representatives of God.” (Liberty Bible Commentary, p.2600, emphasis mine)
That comes across as the divine foreknowledge of scattered believing Christians, and God’s resulting appointment of such Christians for duties in evangelism where they are strategically placed.
One member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians: “We can see that this letter is addressed to specifically those of the faith who have been displaced. James starts his letter in a similar way, but addresses displaced Jews. In the early church, huge numbers of believers were ‘scattered’ abroad and displaced because of the persecution they faced for the faith. God did use this ‘scattering’ to help spread the word of gospel. Believers would read this introduction, self-identify as one of those who God has chosen to be obedient and covered in Christ’s blood (i.e. one of the elect), and would appreciate the blessing of grace and peace to them, and would continue to read the letter.”
Question: What does it say that the “foreknowledge” is of?
Answer: It doesn’t specifically say what the foreknowledge of God is of, and therefore it would be a leap of logic to conclusively assert that the divine foreknowledge in focus of is of the faith of those who would some day, in the future, demonstrate a willingness to believe and hence were appointed by God to join a secret number an elect body on that account (i.e. “the foreseen faith” model of election to salvation). Moreover, this passage does not establish an elect caste vs. non-elect caste. So in the absence of a positive statement on the object of the foreknowledge, one might better conclude that the foreknowledge in focus is of the individuals themselves, rather than an unstated aspect of them, so that having been foreknown as believing Christians, God might elect to use such believers for evangelism and perhaps even martyrdom.
Question: Who is Peter writing to?
Answer: Dispersed Christians, who (in whatever manner of the foreknowledge of God being involved), have been chosen to obey Christ and to be beneficiaries of His atonement.
Question: Does it say that these are chosen for salvation?
Answer: Yes, insomuch that it references the Old Testament sprinkling of blood, used in connection with the atonement of Christ.
Question: What does it mean that these were chosen “to obey Jesus Christ”?
Answer: This is similar to John 3:36, in which Jesus said: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” So this may speak of the evangelical work of Christians.
Question: How were they were chosen “by the sanctifying work of the Spirit”?
Answer: It means that the Holy Spirit makes them fit for duty.
Laurence Vance: “Calvinists who appeal to 1 Peter 1:2 as a proof text for Unconditional Election normally make foreknowledge into foreordination exactly like we will see the Calvinists do in Romans 8:29.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.377, emphasis mine)
However, foreknowledge is not foreordination. The former is an attribute of an omniscient Being, while the latter is just a predetermined plan. How could Calvinists possibly confuse the two?
Foreknowledge presents a significant problem for Calvinistic theology which teaches blind decrees, such that God looks at “nothing” by which He is moved to elect anyone for anything:
John Calvin: “For God looks at nothing outside Himself by which He is moved to elect us, for the counsel of His own will is the only and proper and (as they say) intrinsic cause of election.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p.130, emphasis mine)
John Calvin: “Hence, when Peter calls them elect according to the foreknowledge of God, he is showing that the cause of it depends simply on God alone, because He of His own free will has chosen us. Thus the foreknowledge of God excludes every worthiness on the part of man.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Hebrews and I and II Peter, p.230, emphasis mine)
Question: However, wouldn’t that render 1st Peter 1:1-2 as meaning: “chosen according to the foreknowledge of [nothing but the counsel of His own will]”?
John Calvin: “It is futile subtlety to seize on the word foreknowledge and to attach to the merits of man that election which Paul always ascribes to the purpose of God alone.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.71, emphasis mine)
John Calvin: “Peter, too, salutes the elect as elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Pet 1.2). Is this because some foreseen virtue in them inclined God’s favour towards them? Not at all: Peter is not comparing men among themselves to make some better than others; he puts high above all causes the decree which God determined in Himself. It is if he had said they are now to reckon themselves among the sons of God, because, before they were born, they had been elected.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.71, emphasis mine)
Question: Why does Calvin use buzz words such as “merits” and “virtue”? Why doesn’t he instead say, “faith”?
Answer: Because Calvinists frequently like to engage in a debate trick known as “poisoning the well.” The fact that faith is non-meritorious, Calvinists already know. (Romans 3:27) Their angle is that they want you to think that anything other than Calvinism is works-based, even if the opposition teaches Justification by Faith.
John Calvin: “Peter does not flatter believers as though they were all elected for their individual merits, but by recalling them to the eternal counsel of God declares that they are entirely void of any worthiness. In this passage also Paul repeats in other words the remarks which he had just made concerning God’s purpose. It follows from this that this knowledge depends on God’s good pleasure, because in adopting those whom He would, God had no foreknowledge of anything outside of Himself, but simply marked out those whom He purposed to elect.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.180-181, emphasis mine)
Here we go again with the “merits.” I’d still like to know how foreknowledge marks something out? Also of concern is the statement that “God had no foreknowledge of anything outside of Himself.” Outside of Himself, meaning what? Does that mean “outside of Himself” in terms of exhaustive, meticulous determinism? Is John Calvin suggesting that God has foreknowledge of only that which is decreed? How would that be indicative of deity? Surely, any normal person can claim foreknowledge of what they intend to do next. Does Calvinism reduce divine omniscience to mediocrity?
Calvinist, William MacDonald: “…left to himself, no sinner would trust the Savior, and so in His foreknowledge He marked out certain ones to be trophies of His grace.” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.2250, emphasis mine)
So in other words, God chooses people to be saved so as to honor His sense of graciousness. The alternative view is that chooses no one for salvation except those in Christ, so God may honor His Son. This highlights an important distinction with Calvinism. The mandate of creation, according to Calvinism, is a display of various divine attributes, whereas with Arminianism, the mandate of creation is to honor His Son, in whom is every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 1:3)
Foreknowledge is like a mirror. It receives the image.
It does not cause the image. Calvinists present a very
unnatural view of foreknowledge in order to maintain
Calvinism.
Question: According to Calvinism, foreknowledge only refers to God’s counsel and plan. So does that mean that God must first plan something in order to foreknow it?
Daniel Whedon answers: “If God’s omniscient foresight of all that is or is not in the future is the effect of God’s determination, then an attribute of God is created by an act of God. If God’s foreknowledge depends on his determination, and must wait until after its existence, then he can have no foreknowledge of his own acts, and must wait for present or post-knowledge of them.” (Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan Response to Jonathan Edwards, pp.225-226, emphasis mine)
John Calvin: “Again, God did not choose us because we believed, but in order that we might believe, lest we should seem first to have chosen Him. Paul emphasises that our beginning to be holy is the fruit and effect of election. Hence, they act most preposterously who place election after faith. Then, when Paul lays down as the unique cause of election the good pleasure of God which He has in Himself, he excludes all other causes.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.69, emphasis mine)
John Calvin: “First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that the elect always belonged to God. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, not by faith, nor by any merit, but by pure grace; for while they are far away from him, he regards them in secret as his own.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393, emphasis mine)
John Calvin: “God knew before the world was created those whom He had elected for salvation.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Hebrews and I and II Peter, p.229, emphasis mine)
It becomes very obvious that Calvinism has a big problem with actual foreknowledge. Is it any wonder that the strategy of Calvinists has been to redefine fore-knowledge into fore-planning? Next you will see how it is redefined as fore-loving:
Calvinist, George Whitefield: “For if foreknowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of Scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on God’s foreknowledge. But if by God’s foreknowledge you understand God’s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of choosing them and therefore electing them, then we say that in this sense predestination does not any way depend on God’s foreknowledge.” (A Letter from George Whitefield to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, emphasis mine)
Whitefield cannot bring himself to say, fore-seeing [faith]. He has to say “works” in order to poison the well, in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that God is making a decision based upon something that He knows about the people in question, in terms of being vessels fit for use in the ministry.
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer: “Calvinists point out, however, that the word foreknowledge does not just mean ‘to know beforehand.’ In both the Old and New Testaments it means, ‘to regard with favor.’ Amos quoted God as saying to Israel, ‘You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth’ (3:2). Similarly, the New Testament uses the word in the sense of ‘fore-loved.’ Paul wrote, God hath not rejected His people whom He foreknew (Rom. 11:2). The word cannot mean simply to know in advance but refers to God’s special favor. Other passages support this understanding of the word (Matt. 7:23; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Pet. 1:20). To be elect according to foreknowledge is to be elect on the basis of God’s favor or choice.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.182, emphasis mine)
Wait. It means to be chosen on the basis of God’s choice?
Adrian Rogers: “Foreknowledge does not mean to cause to happen. Some people think that if God foreknows it, then God makes it happen. That would mean that because God foreknew that there was going to be blasphemy or sodomy or rape that God caused it to happen. And of course He does not cause those things to happen. The astronomers know when Halley’s comet is going to appear again. But their knowledge does not cause it to happen. Foreknowledge means on thing: knowing ahead of time. God has foreknown you and your salvation, if you know Christ.” (Foundations For Our Faith: Vol.II, A Study in Romans Chapters 5-9, pp.91-92, emphasis mine)
And knowing ahead of time signifies Prescience: “Knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.” (Dictionary.com)
Indeed, Calvinists seem to think that God foreknowledged the future.
Jerry Vines: “God’s knowledge of the future doesn’t determine the future any more than man’s knowledge of the past determines the past.” (Calvinism – A Baptist and his Election, emphasis mine)
Calvinist, James White: “If God’s foreknowledge is perfect, does it not follow that the future is, in fact, fixed? And if it is fixed, upon what basis did it take the shape it did? Is the outcome of all history merely the fortuitous result of the decisions of free creatures, and if so, how can God claim glory for its final form?” (Debating Calvinism, p.360, emphasis mine)
Go back to the mirror illustration. The future is indeed fixed, and fixed by all who are living in it, both God and man, and since God is eternal, He can tell us exactly what is going on in the future. Moreover, God will receive final glory because Scripture tells us of a time when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Philippians 2:10-11)
The odd thing about the Calvinist objections is that, what if we should say that Jesus chose His disciples according to foreknowledge? Why would that create a major theological dilemma? Sometimes it seems that Calvinists fight simply for the sake of fighting. Jesus knew who He was choosing, and even pointed out that He knew that one of the ones that He was choosing was a devil, meaning Judas. (John 6:64, 70) Each person fit the purpose for which they were chosen. Why, then, the big battle over the argument of “merits”? They were chosen from the standpoint of what they were, eleven fit vessels and one un-fit vessel, which then made him fit for another purpose. It seems that Calvinists have made a mountain out of a molehill. There is every reason to believe that this was an election to service, which Calvinists recognize about John 15:16 anyway.
