"Group" Foreknowledge

[TK]

I was listening to Steve's lecture on 1 Peter on the way into work this morning. This verse came up:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...

I apologize in advance for this question because I am sure that it has been raised before, perhaps many times in the 1000s of posts in the calvinism category, but I didn't really feel like digging to see where it had been discussed before. I generally don't enter into the Calvinism discussions because I find them kind of boring (sorry!).

My question is whether it possible that the foreknowledge/election spoken of refers to a category of people (those who one day will accept Christ) vs. individual election. In other words, God elects everyone who will one day follow Jesus, althought He doesn't have anyone particular in mind.

TK

[Tychicus]

Perhaps "the elect" is just a way of refering to the church (God's chosen people, per 1 Pet 2:9). This includes both Jews and Gentiles. The expression "[chosen] according to the foreknowledge of God" in verse 2, would refer to the Christian teaching that "God's plan to form a church of both Jews and Gentiles" was planned long ago, and predicted in the prophets. You see this teaching quite frequently in Romans (see Rom 1:2, and many of the OT references in Romans). For related teaching see Acts 13:46-48; also 1 Pet 1:10-12 right ahead.

This might sound speculative, but it is standard 1st century theology that is familiar to his audience. I think it is more likely Peter has this in mind rather than some Calvinist (or Arminian) idea of God's foreknowlege of individuals (or some abstract idea of "a group").

[Sean]

While I don't claim to know how God's election works, it seems that the elect refers to those who are in the body of Christ (the Church). Since Christ is the elect seed of Abraham, all who belong to Him are thereby elect in Him.

At the same time, I don't have any trouble with God already knowing the individuals who will become saved.

It seems that a fair reading of Romans 9-11 shows Paul's anguish over unbelieving Jews who are not elect (Rom 11:7-15). Paul states that although they are not elect there is still hope they can be saved! It seems that we are indeed elect in Jesus. Believers are elect, non-believers are not. When someone converts and is saved they become chosen in Christ, the elect of God.

[RickC]

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...

I occasionally attend a Bible study at a boarding house I lived in briefly last year. The guy who leads it is a Calvinist. (I know I'm a little off-topic here but)...don't you know? In his study of the first chapter of 1 Peter, the "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" was what he thought Peter was emphasizing. Needless to say, I don't go to the study often. I'm not interested in hearing Calvinism discourses (been/there, dun/that). At least I don't debate the guy (who doesn't even know he's a Calvinist! as I once asked him if he was and if he was trying to convert me into one). But then again, his John MacArthur Study Bible. "You know he's a Calvinist, right?" I asked.

Well, never mind....

At the same time, I don't have any trouble with God already knowing the individuals who will become saved.

This statement of yours explains why I'm not an Arminian...
(not sure if you identify yourself as such, though).

============================================================
Arminians are perpetually the visiting (not home) team!
Calvinists define the "sport" and the rules of the game!!!
....(go figure)....
=============================================================

Off-topic maybe, just wanted to add some stuff, thanks!

[Sean]

At the same time, I don't have any trouble with God already knowing the individuals who will become saved.

This statement of yours explains why I'm not an Arminian...
(not sure if you identify yourself as such, though).

I don't define myself as "Arminian" except, like Arminius, I disagree with Calvinism just as Arminius did. So when people ask if you are Arminian, probably 99% of the time they are Calvinist and are essentially asking if you agree with them, or like Arminius, disagree with them.

So Rick, are you saying God doesn't know the future choices of people? (multiple OT examples come to mind) Because that was all I meant by the statement. The only reason I believe this is because God foretold the future many times. To deal with this you've got Calvinism saying God controls everything, that's how he knows the future. You've got openness theology that states it's impossible to know the future so God guesses and somewhere in the middle is me (generally lumped with Arminians) who say they don't know how God knew the future, he just does. So I'm not holding to a theology or "ism", I'm just stating what the bible has already stated in several places, that God knows the future choices of men.

[TK]

is it possible that if someone has infinite intelligence (i.e., God) that He would know the future choices of people w/o actually "seeing into the future?" i.e if he had infinite knowledge available to him and knew all possible contingencies. Just musing.

TK

[RickC]

At the same time, I don't have any trouble with God already knowing the individuals who will become saved.

I had said -

This statement of yours explains why I'm not an Arminian...
(not sure if you identify yourself as such, though).

To which you replied -

I don't define myself as "Arminian" except, like Arminius, I disagree with Calvinism just as Arminius did. So when people ask if you are Arminian, probably 99% of the time they are Calvinist and are essentially asking if you agree with them, or like Arminius, disagree with them.

So Rick, are you saying God doesn't know the future choices of people? (multiple OT examples come to mind) Because that was all I meant by the statement. The only reason I believe this is because God foretold the future many times. To deal with this you've got Calvinism saying God controls everything, that's how he knows the future. You've got openness theology that states it's impossible to know the future so God guesses and somewhere in the middle is me (generally lumped with Arminians) who say they don't know how God knew the future, he just does. So I'm not holding to a theology or "ism", I'm just stating what the bible has already stated in several places, that God knows the future choices of men.

Hello Sean

I came across as 'challenging you'. It would have better had I said that the phrase "God [already] knows the individuals who will become saved" simply annoys me. Why would that be? Because it stems from the opposition of Calvinism, which came from Augustine, who got his ideas from Plato and/or Neoplatonism and/or Manicheanism. I've become convinced that Calvinism Vs. Arminianism are never-ending-debates. I don't think these debates existed in Bible times (not even Augustine was born during then) and that the debates are generally useless in that they don't seem to go all the way back to a biblical worldview. The problem (again) is: Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism existed in Bible times. However, I can see that you oppose Calvinism and are actively involved. I've benefited a lot from stuff you've said along these lines, from links you've posted, and so on. So thanks for that!

To Answer Your Question/Reply
On if God knows the future choices of people. Biblical theology (and by that I mean "within the worldview of biblical authors") would say "Yes" - God knows the elect will believe and that the elect are made up of individuals. I mean, that's so obvious - it's not "deep" at all!

Open Theism
I've been listening to Greg Boyd's Introductory talk on this from 2008 (see my youtube playlist below). Boyd presents "openness theology" as an alternative to Calvinism and Arminianism while acknowledging Arminian similarities. While Boyd keeps Open Theism within the context of post-biblical Calvinism and Arminianism (in that he contrasts it with the two); I'm seeing and thinking that Open Theism probably reflects the actual mindset of the biblical authors best or better than any view I've heard. That is, it seems to stand in a class of its own and offers a truly alternative way of understanding what the biblical authors may have really thought about this stuff.

I suppose my hearing an Arminian-like statement was irritating to me because I'm doing all I can to stretch my mind past post-biblical theology and to reach right inside the biblical authors' minds. You're simply opposing Calvinism, which is a good thing for as far as it goes. I want to go past the 16th and 4th centuries - back to the 1st and beyond. And it's hard to do! especially with all of the 'reminders' I may see on the web or elsewhere. I faced a similar challenge when I tried to read Matthew 24 without a "pre-trib lens" - which I had been taught to look through. It was difficult to do, and took quite some time to actually really-read what was said, and when it was said (1st century). I'm attempting to bypass Calvinism and Arminianism, facing the "lenses" each one sees things through, doing all I can to go beyond them!

So, please accept my apology for 'challenging' you. I guess I'm fed up with Calv-Arm Debates, which I think are stale. But please keep up the good work! I'm sure I will oppose Calvinism myself, in some form or fashion. Just trying to get beyond all of that stuff to a deeper understanding. Rearranging Thinking Criteria.

You've got openness theology that states it's impossible to know the future so God guesses...

Boyd challenges this, that God "guesses" - what he calls a "misrepresentation" of his version of Open Theism anyway, (and that this is sometimes possibly deliberately done so - though he tries to give people as much slack as he can on this).

Cf. Greg Boyd -
"A Flexible Sovereignty: A Biblical Understanding of Providence and the Nature of the Future"
(playlist link, I hope works!) -
http://tinyurl.com/2e973wy

Lastly, have you heard this before, Sean? (or anyone else)?

Thanks & God bless you, Sean!
And sorry...I'm trying not to be grumpy as I age!
(and am cutting back on cawfee, help)!

[RickC]

is it possible that if someone has infinite intelligence (i.e., God) that He would know the future choices of people w/o actually "seeing into the future?" i.e if he had infinite knowledge available to him and knew all possible contingencies. Just musing.

I don't want to change the thread to "Open Theism" but -
(I think I can accurately paraphrase Greg Boyd re: this)...here goes....

"God, being infinite in knowledge and wisdom, can conceive of all of the trillions of future possibilities in a way as if they are real - even though they may never happen! He sees every future possibility, and has a plan-in-response to whatever anyone could (ever) possibly choose. Thus, He can, and does, change His mind in-real-time during His ever-present-interactions with people."

This, for me, much more clearly represents how God interacted with people in the Bible than 4th or 16th century characterizations! It sounds "really-real" to me, including how He has acted-and-interacted! in my life!

A hopefully not thread hijacker, and fellow INTP (we thinkalot, huh?), God bless you, TK

[RickC]

P.S. I had an Open Theism thread, here while back.
Don't know if it's worth bumping and -
Just the first few minutes of Boyd's first vid is worth seeing -
coz he's HILARIOUS!


"I can understand how someone can be a Calvinist exegetically....
But what I can't understand is how____ ____ ____ ___".
watch the vid, ROFL!

[Sean]

Hey Rick, thanks for the Greg Boyd youtube link. He does do a very good job of explaining the openness view. I'm enjoying watching it. While my statement may have seemed harsh (Openness=God guesses), I still see openness this way. Guessing, by definition can mean an estimate. This seems to be the point Greg Boyd is making. God knows all the outcomes, all the moves. The fact still remains that until these events actually unfold God still does not know which "possible future" is going to be the actual one until some "threshold" is crossed. This is why, according to Boyd, God can be genuinely sorry for making man.

But anyway, I'm enjoying the Boyd videos. He's doing a much better job explaining the openness view than anyone else on this forum has. (Sorry guys )