We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to 1 Peter 1:1–2?

As I read it, I Pet 1:2 is the thematic statement for the whole chapter. As I will show in a moment, the rest of the chapter unpacks this statement, so the rest of the chapter should be used to interpret this statement. In the rest of the chapter we find that believers…

* have been given mercy through the resurrection of Jesus (vs 3)

* have received an inheritance that can never perish (vs. 4)

* are protected by the power of God until all is revealed (vs. 5)

* are refined by the suffering we undergo (vs. 6-7)

* and live in hope (8-9)

Then Peter says in vss. 10-12:

Concerning THIS SALVATION, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the Gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

It seems to me that all of this fleshes out the “foreknowledge” in the thematic verse. What was foreknown and partially revealed to the prophets was the plan of salvation that God was going to bring about and which Peter’s audience was now experiencing. In light of this, Peter says, we should live holy lives (vss. 13-9), fleshing out the sanctification theme in vs. 2. And he then returns to the foreknowledge theme when he says that Christ “was chosen (prognostico — same word as in vs. 2) before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake” (vs. 20). What God foreknew (because he predetermined it) was that Jesus would come and bring salvation, as Peter again reiterates in vss. 21-2).

So, in light of the whole passage, I don’t think Peter is saying God chose us INDIVIDUALLY according to his foreknowledge. What I think he’s rather saying is that God foreknew the plan of salvation centered in Jesus Christ, a plan that included the gracious invitation that whoever believes would be chosen as one of God’s people. What was left open was which individuals would accept this invitation. But now that we’re “in,” we can all say “we were chosen according to God’s foreknown and foreordained plan.”

Related Reading

What is the significance of Numbers 14:12–20?

In response to Israel’s bickering the Lord says “I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you [Moses] a nation greater and mightier than they” (vs. 12). Moses asks the Lord to forgive the people, and the Lord eventually responds, “I do forgive, just as you have asked” (vs.…

Topics:

Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?

Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine…

Isn’t Open Theism outside of historic orthodoxy?

The Church has never used one’s view of divine foreknowledge as a test for orthodoxy. And while the open view has always been a very minor perspective, it has had its defenders throughout Church history and it has never been called “heresy” (until in mid 1990s when some started using this label). According to some…

How do you respond to Isaiah 44:28–45:1?

This passage is one of the most persuasive evidences of divine foreknowledge in the Bible. The verse proclaims the Lord as the one “who says to Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose’; and who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall…

We Won’t Treat Your Questions This Way

Tags: ,

What God Doesn’t Know (According to W.L.Craig)

Hello bloggers.  Here’s Part II of my response to Bill Craig’s podcast critique of the open model of providence. As I see it, the central difference between Craig’s position (Molinism) and my own (open theism) boils down to our different assessments of futurity. As I noted in my previous blog, Craig believes that propositions asserting…