Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 7 – First Peter
Posted on 02. Dec, 2009 by Les in Theology
Turns Out Peter’s a Calvinist, Too
Think about it, Peter was a member of Israel, God’s chosen people, and one of the apostles, Jesus’ chosen individuals. How in the world could he not believe in election?
Proving Calvinism with Peter in 3… 2… 1…
My Top 5 Texts From First Peter
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, 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:”
1 Peter 1:3-5
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
1 Peter 1:20-2
“He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.”
1 Peter 2:7-8
“So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”
1 Peter 2:9
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
Other Notable Texts
1 Peter 4:18
“And
“If the righteous is scarcely saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”"
1 Peter 5:5
“Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”"
1 Peter 5:10-11
“And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.”
1 Peter 5:13
“She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.”
J.C. Thibodaux
Jan 4th, 2010
I don’t think proving Calvinism entails proving election/sovereignty/atonement/etc. All studied and Bible-believing Christians believe in those things. The issue is whether they are what Calvinism specifically defines them as.
For instance, 1 Peter 1:2 states that election is according to God’s foreknowledge (yes, and in Greek, prognosis is definitely ‘foreknowledge,’ not ‘forelove’ or some such equivocation). This would conflict with Calvinism’s unconditional election. Arminians and other Synergists believe in God’s power preserving us (albeit not irresistibly, hence so many warnings are against apostasy are given to the elect).
Les
Jan 5th, 2010
It’s quite a jump to say that the word foreknowledge “conflicts” with unconditional election. You’ve assumed a definition without giving it in your comment. I assume you’re wanting foreknowledge to simply mean that God knows what happens while stripping away any sovereign control of the events.
I completely agree that to foreknow something means you have knowledge without the necessity of being the source of it, but that’s not the case with God. God knows because He does.
Now when scripture says “For those whom he foreknew…” we’ve left any possibility of your simple foreknowledge view. It’s not claiming He knew what you would do, it’s saying He knew a specific people in a specific way. Hence the ‘forelove’ you eluded to.
Unless you believe God is indeed not in control of His creation, and is only reactionary (and what is God if not the decider of fates and controller of the universe?), sovereign election is unavoidable. Not to mention the overwhelming amount of scripture that clearly teaches sovereign election.
Les
Jan 5th, 2010
The election/sovereignty/atonement of the non-calvinist all fall short of what the terms actually mean.
To say election is God reacting to the choice of man is to define the opposite of election. Man elected himself, God watched.
The limited control over events to allow the existence of choice for the creature is unsovereignty.
An atonement that was completed 2000 years ago, yet is useless until men do something to activate it personally, is an insult to justice, and a mockery of the work of Christ.
These are mutts of theologies that don’t even make sense. They’ve been created to water down God’s promises in order to keep people from tasting the true freedom in Christ (because that scares people). It’s man’s attempt to hold people responsible for their actions, at the expense of the treasure of God’s grace.
J.C. Thibodaux
Jan 5th, 2010
Not much of a jump really. Knowing what creatures will freely do hardly requires God giving up His sovereignty. Knowledge involving any contingency would be a condition, and therefore mean election wasn’t unconditional, contra Calvinism.
Addressing Romans 8, ‘knowing’ people is equivalent to knowing about or discerning them, compare Matthew 7:16. So the ‘forelove’ argument really has no ground to stand on there other than special pleading. Additionally, the noun form used in 1 Peter cannot reasonably be stretched to mean such a thing, as gnosis/prognosis refer to factual knowledge, not relational.
No one is disputing sovereign election, but unconditional election, which there is no scriptural evidence for. Being (at least to some level) reactionary and being in control are not mutually exclusive terms. To have control or sovereignty, one need only have power, not meticulously employ it. The idea that every action proceeds from the mind of God and is necessitated by Him would logically have to include sin, the implications of which are blasphemous, since God is Holy.
Man can’t ‘elect himself,’ God’s choice in accordance with own His knowledge is still necessarily His choice, not man’s. The fact that the atonement is not effective for anyone until he responds to the call of God in faith is plainly scriptural truth, as we are children of wrath until we do. It makes perfect sense in light of the biblical record.
Les
Jan 5th, 2010
No scriptural evidence for unconditional election? I would venture to say that behind maybe God’s Holiness, Man’s sinfulness, and possibly God’s absolute sovereignty, uncondtional election is the most surface level doctrine in the Bible (and unfortunately one of the hardest to come to terms with.).
One would have to have an incredibly deep presupposition to deny it. It’s ok, I’ve been there. Be careful not to let your idea of free-will be a stumbling block to reading the Bible.
Just saying the word ‘Israel’ should be proof enough, but here’s the tip of the iceberg from the NT.
“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”" -Romans 9:11-13
“And he said, “This is why I told you(A) that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”" -John 6:65
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” -John 15:16
“who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began” -2 Timothy 1:9
“And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” -Romans 8:30
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” -John 6:44
“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” -John 1:12-13
“Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,
“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”" -Romans 10:20
“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.” -Romans 11:5
on and on and on and on… it’s kind of overwhelming.
J.C. Thibodaux
Jan 5th, 2010
“Stumbling block”? Au contraire, some form of free will is the only way to reconcile the clear statements of scripture – especially concerning sin and temptation.
The election of individuals in the collective body of Israel was still conditioned upon their faithfulness. Romans 9 teaches about election, but noticably absent is the idea of unconditionality (as ‘conditions’ and ‘works’ are not synonymous terms). John 6 shows that men must be drawn to believe (which I firmly hold to), but says nothing about it being unconditional, and per John 15 and 2 Timothy 1, I again don’t believe man chooses himself, nor does anything in scripture imply that man freely believing conflicts with God’s purpose and grace (one would have to assume that a priori). Romans 8 is again, predestination according to foreknowledge. To John 1, no one credible is suggesting that man bears himself, that is an act of God that occurs after one believes. God revealing Himself to people who didn’t seek Him or choosing them by His grace doesn’t necessitate unconditionality, that must also be presupposed without warrant.
The issue isn’t whether we are chosen or predestinated, but rather whether the scriptures unequivocally communicate that it’s strictly unconditional, which they never do.
Les
Jan 5th, 2010
I wonder what kind of wording you would need.
“though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue”
Why is he stressing that they weren’t born, or that they hadn’t done anything? Does he have to actually use the word “unconditional” to convince you?
So what exactly is the condition you’re supposing? That we freely believe, right?
“You did not choose me, but I chose you”
“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” -Romans 9:16
It seems to me like you’ve made up your mind and it doesn’t matter what scripture says.
J.C. Thibodaux
Jan 5th, 2010
The wording in Romans 9 suffices nicely, thanks.
“Why is he stressing that they weren’t born, or that they hadn’t done anything?”
Because…they hadn’t.
“Does he have to actually use the word ‘unconditional’ to convince you?”
Only imply it, which he does not.
“You did not choose me, but I chose you”
Already addressed.
“who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Red-herring, already addressed.
“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” -Romans 9:16
Of course it doesn’t depend on man’s works or even will, our wills don’t elect us for us, otherwise God would have to elect certain people. This concept doesn’t conflict with Him electing according to His own criteria.
“It seems to me like you’ve made up your mind and it doesn’t matter what scripture says.”
I simply haven’t resorted to arbitrarily inserting my own wishful thinking into it. But if you think it does teach unconditional election somewhere, you’re welcome to show where such a concept is clearly conveyed in scripture.
Les
Jan 5th, 2010
You didn’t say anything.
I’d retype those verses for you to consider but you won’t actually address them. Red Herring? It says we’re not born again based on a decision we make… it’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying.
“Of course it doesn’t depend on man’s works or even will, our wills don’t elect us for us, otherwise God would have to elect certain people. This concept doesn’t conflict with Him electing according to His own criteria.”
What does that mean? What is the condition then? What is His criteria? Faith that doesn’t come from our wills? Please, don’t just give some off the cuff answer. I don’t know what you’re trying to say at this point.
J.C. Thibodaux
Jan 5th, 2010
“Red Herring? It says we’re not born again based on a decision we make… it’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying.”
No, it says we were not born by the will of flesh or man, but of God, nothing about ‘based upon’ appears in the passage. God regenerates those who believe, but our faith or decision is not what brings the new birth about, that is an act of God, as I explained in my 3rd post.
“What does that mean? What is the condition then?”
His criteria, generally stated, is that those who hear the Son shall receive life through faith in Him.
Les
Jan 5th, 2010
“His criteria, generally stated, is that those who hear the Son shall receive life through faith in Him.”
Who hears the son? Everyone? Those who the Father gives to the son? Those who choose to?
J.C. Thibodaux
Jan 5th, 2010
‘Hears’ as in ‘heeds,’ which plainly, not everyone does. God calls men unto salvation and allows us to hear, but men themselves often refuse to heed and turn from their wickedness (Matthew 13:15, Luke 13:34, Acts 7:51, 13:46).
Les
Jan 13th, 2010
This one goes out to you, J.C.. http://www.killerrobotninja.com/the-basics-does-man-have-a-free-will/