Howard: Peter on Election(a Theology thread)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Bill Grover, Mar 25, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Hi Howard

    So, why does 1 Peter 1:2, "Elect according to God's foreknowledge" not evidence predestination?
     
  2. Howard

    Howard New Member

    I haven't given it much consideration - let me look at the verse in context, analyze the Greek and a few commentaries and I will get back to you.
     
  3. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    Thanks.

    As you have time could you tell me also why you do not think Peter's words in Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:28 are evidences of the divine decree? I would appreciate that as I see not just Paul but Peter also teaching predestination!
     
  4. Howard

    Howard New Member

    Bill,
    Rather than tax my typing skills may I invite you to look at Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, II. Predestination, pp. 109 - 125. The scripture that you use is fully explained here and the Greek and Hebrew well examined.
    Blessings,
    Howard.
     
  5. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===



    Howard


    Perhaps you could have briefly summarized what you think is there in Berkhof. But I will accept your invitation as it does not take long to look at his systematic or much effort at all to understand it.

    While I do not care much for Berkhof in general because he is not very exhaustive nor in particular because of his view on the Son's essence being unendingly generated by the Father, which both Calvin and Warfield deny, I do mostly agree with Berkhof on election and predestination. But can you?

    I find my mind slipping sometimes lately as I struggle to control the distractions of health issues and other personal ones. But, Howard, I don't think I am without grounds for being confused with your reference to Berkof in support of the position that Peter does not teach , just as does Paul, the election by God of individuals to salvation. Didn't our interchange go something like this:

    As I recall you had said in the other thread that you found Paul confusing in regard to predestination or election.

    So I said , other NT writers teach that too and gave , among other texts, 1 Peter 1:2.

    Then you said that you were not sure that these texts supported election or predestination.

    Then I said, OK, how do you interpret 1 Peter 1:2.

    Then you suggest I look at Berkhof for an explanation.

    Is scenario that about right?

    But Howard, Berkhof repeatedly uses 1 Peter 1:2 to argue for election/predestination:

    On page 112 he says that foreknowledge (prognosis) in 1 Pet should be interpreted by the Hebrew yada meaning a selective, choosing knowledge .

    On 113 he says this choosing is not just of a plan for salvation or of groups but of individuals. One of his texts for proof is one that I gave you- Acts 4:28!

    On page 114 he says that individual election is shown by 1Pet 1:2

    On 115 he says this election (unlike Arminius taught) is not based on a foreseen faith but only on God's sovereign pleasure.

    So, IMO, according to Berkof both 1Peter and Acts teach the same predestination as Paul.

    If you think that I am interpreting Berkhof wrongly would you tell me your reasons for that opinion?

    Thanks,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2004
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Pardon my intrusion into this discussion but I just wanted to say it is obvious you have Berkhoff's works.

    You must have one of the best theological libraries around, Bill! This is highly commendable.

    As I stated on other threads, I have given away most of my theology books but now I wish I still had them, especially "seeing" your collection.

    The only systematic theology book I have left is Floyd Barackman's PRACTICAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY and it's pretty thorough for a one-volume work.

    Although the title says "practical" it is a systematic theological work. It is moderately Calvinistic, dispensational, and premillenial.

    This was one of the few books I used at Bethany (Th.M.) that I didn't enjoy, ha!

    I always liked, with some exceptions, what Tillich and Troeltsch said about predestination, although I cannot remember their exact words.

    Bill, do you have Tillich's three-volume work in systematic theology? If so, will you kindly paraphrase what he said about predestination?

    I'd like to have my memory refreshed, thanks!
     
  7. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    Jimmy

    Yes I have Tillich.

    As Tillich rejects the double destiny of men (ie Heaven or Hell) both because he sees that as being against God's creation and love ( 3:407) and because he thinks there is no literal Hell,( 3:418) ), Tillich feels no constraint to accept the dogma of double predestination (that God elects some to Hell--1:285). Nor does Tillich IMO feel a sufficient constraint to evaluate his theology by Scripture although he claims to think that Scripture is the basic source of systematics. (1:35).
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thanks! What don't you have?

    Now if you say you have the works of Troeltsch, I will be truly amazed!

    I see I can buy Tillich's three-volume work, so I think I will.

    I can purchase excellent used copies at ABE Books.

    Might come in handy for Trinity, although I am sure they'd prefer Grudem or someone like him.

    But hopefully, like Bethany, Trinity will allow one to explore and investigate and not simply be "spoon fed."

     
  9. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Bill,

    Would you agree that the doctrine of election/predestination is intertwined with the doctrine of eternal security? In other words, what God chooses he will never lose, but what man is free to choose man is also free to lose? I ask this for a reason.

    Tony
     
  10. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    Tony


    I lean toward 5 point Calvinism. IMO predestination can be also supported by the nature of God as well as those 5 interelatedl points.

    So, yes.

    Still, I get along with Arminians just fine, and my MA in Theology was done at the Arminian Point Loma (then , 1967, Pasadena).

    I don't have much enthusiasm for election debates any longer.
     
  11. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    Ok. I think it's a difficult doctrine to convincingly debate on either side. Since you don't have an enthusiam for this particular topic anymore I will stop here. ;)
     
  12. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===



    Yes it is.

    I'm very willing to argue points even within evangelical theology if Scripture is deemed the criterion of Theology. I'm doing lots of argumentation in the dissertation and finding it fairly challenging. On paper I have met the positions and arguments of literally scores with whom I disagree on one or more related points. But predestination just doesn't make my toes tingle any more.

    However, if you're just wanting to spar a bit, my current interest is in Christology and trinal relationships not in soteriology or (Biblical) anthropology. These I debated in the 60s and 70s with friends. As a wayward son I wasted the 80s! Ecclesiology I worked through somewhat in the 90s in the ThM thesis. Personal eschatology and millennial concepts are a little interesting to me , but I wouldn't wish now to deeply get into these.

    So, Chapter titles in the dissertation are:

    title: The Obedient Son

    1- Introduction
    2- The Ingenerate Son
    3- The Divine Son
    4- The Trinal Son
    5- The Subservient Son
    6- The Incarnate Son

    I am arguing against of the doctrine of the eternal role subordination of the Son, but for sparring purposes could take either side.

    Anything regarding these chapter topics from the arenas of either exegetics, historical, or systematic theology from the perspectives of either Evangelicalism, Greek Orthodoxy, Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, Confessional Lutheranism, or Roman Catholicism is within my area of interest to debate.

    Any of these areas will likely get a response from me ; I await your pleasure,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2004

Share This Page