|
|
|
|
FIRST PETER
SUPPLEMENT TO THE TEXT -- CH 1:1-2
(vv.1-2) Though Pelagius, who lived in the fourth century, was
not a contemporary of Calvin, for some reason Calvin isolated him as the object of scornful rebukes in his writings.
That was probably true, because Calvin was a student of Augustine's theology and it was Augustine who was a contemporary
of Pelagius. Pity poor Pelagius. He must have been an imbecile, totally lacking in logical capacity, in order for
him to have been the object of John Calvin's scorn and ridicule. What was the glaring error of Pelagius? Augustine
spoke against Pelagius, because Pelagius taught that man is not born corrupt and that babies are innocent. Augustine,
on the other hand, taught that every man is conceived and born in sin, and can be saved only through the grace
of God according to His divine, good pleasure. Through Augustine's influence, the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431)
denounced the teachings of Pelagius as heresy.
"Calvinism" is a theological thought process which postulates total depravity, unconditional election,
limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance. But it was Augustine who established the basis for that
theology, not Calvin. In our generation those dogmas may be called "Calvinism," "Neo-Calvinism"
or whatever -- it matters not what they are called and whether one is a disciple of Calvin or Pelagius. What really
matters is what the scripture says about election and predestination.
Obviously, the Bible teaches something about predestination and election. Peter used the word "elect"
or -- "chosen" (ch. 1:1, of the KJV), and spoke of such as being according to the foreknowledge of God
(v. 2). It is important to understand that in a consideration of this subject there are two extremely different
views. One view is that commonly identified with John Calvin and postulates that election is individual, unconditional
and monothetic.
"Individual," as it relates to Calvin's teaching on election, means that God, before time existed, picked
out certain individuals, without thought for their being either good or bad, and predestinated them to eternal
life. It necessarily follows that, if that be the case, he also picked out certain other individuals and predestinated
them to eternal condemnation. Consequently, in neither instance can the individuals change their eternal predestination.
It matters not how much a lost person may believe, his belief is only evil and he can never be saved. Nor does
it matter how reprobate a saved person may become, he can never be lost.
"Unconditional," according to this philosophy, means that grace is totally without any conditions for
man to meet and, in fact, sees man as being absolutely incapable of doing anything, even believing, unless God
gives him faith. Any obedience on the part of man is viewed by Calvinism as merely an outgrowth of the irresistible
grace, not as man responding to God-given conditions.
"Monothetic," in this context of thought, means that salvation is totally the product of God's will --
that is, that whatever God wills must be so and man has no choice of his own to respond to God's wishes and is
powerless in the matter of salvation. God's will and only God's will decides and determines who shall be saved
and who shall be lost, without any consideration for man's wishes or choices.
The second view is that election is corporate, conditional and involves man's free will in response to and in conjunction
with God's will. Obviously, corporate, as opposed to individual, means that God predestinated and elected salvation
to be in Christ Jesus. This is set forth almost redundantly in Eph. 1:3-13, where Paul uses the expression "in
Christ," or its equivalent, some eight times. Hence, what God foreknew and predestinated was the relationship
wherein salvation would be a reality.
"Conditional," in this context of thought, means that man's salvation is dependent upon man's meeting
certain God-given conditions. God gave those conditions. Now He appeals to men to come to Him for His grace and
forgiveness. That necessarily means that He so made man that man is capable of responding according to his own
free will. In that line of thought, man receives God's forgiveness, not because he earns grace, but because he
accepts what God offers on God's terms.
As opposed to "monothetic," this view presents salvation as a cooperative effort between God's will and
man's. God has decreed that man is lost by himself. It is God's will that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), but man
must want to do what God wants him to do. Hence, man's will is involved in his own salvation and God has given
him that right of choice. God neither forces him to be saved, nor does He force him to be lost. These views are
as opposite as day and night.
It should be clear to any student of the Bible that, in the whole picture of the nature of God and the nature of
man, God made man a special creation having the power of choice to do evil and good. In doing that God necessarily
placed upon Himself restrictions so as not to violate that freedom. While time continues man may choose whom he
will serve, but he must accept the consequences of those choices. If he willingly and faithfully serves God, then
God has promised him eternal life. However, if he chooses to serve the Devil, he has been assured that he will
go away into everlasting punishment (Mt. 25:31-46).
Notice that God made provisions potentially for all men to be saved in that Christ died for all men (1 Tim. 2:6;
Tit. 2:11). Furthermore, it is God's will that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). Based upon those truths, Jesus appealed
to men to come to him that they may have rest for their souls, (Mt.11:28-30). But, if God offers salvation to man
and man is incapable of responding to accept His offer, then God is merely playing with man. That would make God
a cruel God. If Calvinism be true, God would be like a man tying a dog to a tree and offering him a delicious dish
of meat just outside his reach. The man would offer the dish to the dog, call for him to come and get it, while
knowing that the dog was incapable of heeding his bidding. Can you see God as making provisions for man's salvation,
offering that grace to man, calling him to come and accept it, but so restraining him that he is incapable of doing
what God calls him to do? Though Calvin sought to escape the consequences of his theology, his theology necessarily
makes God a cruel God.
What does Peter mean by addressing these disciples as "the chosen" (elect)? The word Greek word "ekletois" means "picked out" or "chosen;" hence,
when viewed from the verbal aspect it refers to God's act of choosing and when viewed adjectivally or as a noun
it describes and classifies the ones who have been chosen. Peter uses the same word in ch. 2:9 -- "But ye
are a chosen (eklekton) generation..."
After Peter urges these disciples to add the necessary characteristics to their lives, he says: "Wherefore
the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall
never fall," (2 Pet. 1:10). There is an implication in this urging that a failure on their part to add these
so-called "Christian virtues" would mean that their calling and election would not be sure.
God predetermined, God chose, according to His own will and good pleasure and consistent with His very nature where
salvation would be realized. That salvation is in Christ Jesus and all who are in Christ are His chosen people.
To put it another way -- all who have CHOSEN to serve God through Jesus Christ are His CHOSEN people. (For a detailed
study of the subject of "election and predestination," I would suggest the book "Elect In The Son,"
by Robert Shank, Westcott Publishers, Springfield, Missouri).
However, as it relates to the subject of election, there are some other words and expressions used by Peter in
v. 2, which must be addressed. First of all the "election" is "according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father." The word "elect" occurs in the first verse in the Greek text, rather than the second,
and is tied to the word "strangers." It is, however, associated with the foreknowledge of God. But do
not confuse the two. Election, here, is spoken of as being the product of God's foreknowledge.
God had foreknown that Gentiles as well as Jews would be saved (cf. Rom. 15:7-12). This is comprehended in the
Abrahamic covenant -- "...in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed..." (Gen. 22:18).
This reaffirmation would bring comfort to these Gentile Christians who were suffering (cf. 4:12-16).
Does God's foreknowledge mean inevitability in individual lives? Does it infringe upon man's freedom to choose?
All the things God may foreknow are known only to Him; hence, it is a profitless enterprise for man to engage in
speculation about that. God may foreknow all things, if He so chooses, or He may choose not to know all the future
-- that prerogative is His. But His foreknowledge never means individual determinism. Remember that it was God's
will that Jesus should die for the sins of the world and it was foreordained from the foundation of the world (1:20;
Rev. 13:8). But that foreknowledge did not annul Jesus's willing choice in the matter. Determinism seeks to destroy
man's accountability and freedom to choose.
What Peter refers to as the election according to the foreknowledge of God the Father is "through sanctification
of the Spirit," and "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," (v. 2b). In looking
at the two prepositional phrases separately, it should be noted that the first phrase is not actually presenting
the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying man. It literally reads "in sanctification of spirit." Reading
it thusly, it is understood to refer to the sanctification, i.e., the setting apart, of our own spirits.
The second phrase is integrally connected to the first. The sanctification of our spirits is into the obedience
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. Does this refer to our obedience or to Christ's submissiveness in shedding
His blood that we might be sanctified? It is true that Christ obeyed and, thereby, died for our sins -- "Though
he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the
author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," (Heb. 5:8-9). However, since the context is speaking
about that sanctification which has affected our spirits, it seems best to understand that the obedience under
consideration is our obedience to the gospel system -- the sanctification process necessarily entails our obedience.
The "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" is also vitally connected to our being set apart. The sprinkling
of blood and water was that which symbolized both the cleansing from defilements under the old covenant and the
setting apart of the people unto God (Heb. 9:13, 19-22; read also the books of Exodus and Leviticus). Therefore,
it is our willingness to be submissive to God's will that brings about our being, in a figure, sprinkled by the
blood of Jesus Christ. This is simply a descriptive way of saying that we have been cleansed from sins and put
into a covenant relationship with God by the benefits of the death of Christ.
How important is that blood (His death)? The Hebrew writer answers first in ch. 9:22: "...and without the
shedding of blood is no remission." Then, to convince the Hebrew Christians of the seriousness of their neglect
and what their neglect was actually doing to God, he says, "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith
he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29).
Did you see the point he made about blood? Look again. It is by the blood of the covenant (Jesus's blood) that
we are sanctified. The sanctification process for man is indispensably connected to the death of Christ. By their
actions these Hebrew Christians were saying that the blood of Christ which was so holy, so perfect, so important
to their salvation, was a common, unholy thing to them.
The usual greetings extended by inspired writers is that of wishing upon the disciples the grace and peace of God.
These two words are generally always associated together in the greetings proffered by authors of holy scriptures,
(note Rom. 1:7; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2). They are a wish for God's continued favor and the attending peace that comes
from that favor. Not only should we enjoy the peace that comes from being reconciled to God but we should also
make peace one of the primary goals in a brother-to-brother relationship (note Eph. 2:11-17; James 3:17-18).
[Table of Contents] [Preface] [Introduction] [Outline] [Study Questions]
[Ch. 1:1-2 ] [Ch.1:3-4] [Ch.1:5-6] [Ch.1:7-8] [Ch.1:9-12]
|
