# 1 Peter 1:2



## rmb (May 1, 2005)

''To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 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."

Friends say that the mention of the obedience to Jesus Christ, prior to the sprinkling with his blood conclusively demonstrates that one receives (by free will) Christ BEFORE one is born again. Their argument is based on the order of the two phrases. What would be another way of understanding the order of the phrases.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 1, 2005)

I preached a sermon on this very text a couple of months ago:

http://www.puritanboard.com/tulipfaith/1 Peter 1_2.mp3


----------



## Poimen (May 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I preached a sermon on this very text a couple of months ago:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/tulipfaith/1 Peter 1_2.mp3



Fred stop self-aggrandizing yourself!


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmb_
> ''To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 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."
> 
> Friends say that the mention of the obedience to Jesus Christ, prior to the sprinkling with his blood conclusively demonstrates that one receives (by free will) Christ BEFORE one is born again. Their argument is based on the order of the two phrases. What would be another way of understanding the order of the phrases.



Without having to again belabor the differences in free will, before conversion and after, the term _election_, which is used in the presented text, alone destroys the idea of free willy_ism_. God marks you out, and Jesus himself says that all the father _gives_ Him, _will_ come to him. Where is the free will in this? Can anything resist His hand? The waves obey Him! The stars are His fingerwork.

Scripture is not neccesarily in chronological order; there are more than enough examples in the bible to destroy this theory. As far as the statement of _sprinkling_. Believers are constantly sprinkled by the blood of Christ.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 

The question is why is Christ a _better_ sacrifice? It was once for all. 

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; 
Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; 
Isa 46:11 calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it. 


[Edited on 5-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## larryjf (May 12, 2005)

1 Peter 1:2
''To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 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."

The way the verse is put together it seems to me that it is saying we are elect for the purpose of obedience and sprinkling with His blood.
Both the obedience and the blood are a result of the election, they are actually the reason for our election.

The verse seems to point more directly to the saved being elect of God as opposed to a free choice.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 13, 2005)

It's absurd to say that the order of these phrases in this greeting is meant to convey a strict _ordo salutis_ (order of salvation). Lists don't have a "default setting." Whatever the order is meant to convey must be determined by a study of and unfoldment of the text. Peter greets those who are "elected," that is identified as "chosen-ones," the Picked, the Selected. They are _so:_

1) According to (on the basis of) God's foreknowledge. Well now, if this listing is a strict chronology, how do the free-willyers (I like that, Scott) get around this phrase? I know the stock answer--the basis for God's choice as it relates to his own power is founded on his incredible predictive abilities. <gag> "He loved me because I first loved him." Needless to say, such an explanation destroys the "chronology" completely, because they make point #3 the predicate for point #1. And actually "foreknowledge" here is meant to convey the absolute and unquestionable sovereignty of God--his knowledge is intimate, exhaustive, and determinative.

2) In sanctification of the Spirit. Actually, here is regeneration, or the new birth (where definitive sanctification is actualized in history, and the process begins internal to the individual), along with the whole sanctifying life-course of the believer after his conversion (process sanctification), culminating in glory and perfect sanctification. Thus, where we find the new birth spoken of here it actually comes in the list at #2 (still prior to #3). 

So far chosen, by God's eternal design, by a setting-apart-process...

3) unto obedience of Jesus Christ. Which describes what the setting apart process does, i.e. what its goal is, how it works, who its primary object is.

4) unto sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Which describes the means by which and the authority for which the setting apart process takes place. That is, here is addressed (in short) the "legal framework" for the whole situation. A thorough exposition of this text would lead us into the whole matter of the history of redemption, the Person and Work of Christ, and individual justification.


What should be clear is that this listing is not strictly a chronology, although there are elements of chronology there; and where such elements are identifiable, they promote the Reformed view of the _ordo salutis,_ not the Arminian one. And in the points brought into play by the free-willyers Matt mentioned in the initial post (points # 3 & 4), there is little reason to view them as chronological in any case, insofar as they are essentially coordinated _descriptively,_ and not subordinately or chronologically, to the sanctification mentioned in point #2. All the logical connections must be worked through by the application of Systematic Theology.


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 13, 2005)

God is a God of order and He is absolutely precise with all His methods. There is obviously a reason why God orders words in His scripture... possibly to provoke conversation such as this, not to mention detailing the truth (who knows?).

If we look at the basic principles of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, we begin with repentance, followed by faith toward God, then the doctrine of baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and ending with eternal judgment.

Looks to me like the sprinkling is the third principle involved. First there is your true repentance for your sins followed by a faith in God (giving you a belief of the truth). Repentance and faith towards God will in fact bring obedience to Jesus Christ first, then you are sprinkled.

This fits exactly with the order of 1 Peter 1:2. Your friends are correct in saying that knowledge and obedience to Jesus Christ occurs prior to being born again/justified/baptized by fire. They are wrong to assert that this is free will. 

The jailor in Acts 16 asks Paul & Silas what must I do to be saved? And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (Acts 16:31). On earth, your belief of Jesus (faith towards God) occurs prior to your knowledge of salvation. This faith is not of your own... it is given to you by God. I believe our revelation of God and sanctification occurs as a process here on earth. God as for-ordained your salvation and placed you in Christ Jesus from before the foundation of the world.

The order of the wording in 1 Peter 1:2. is just fine and absolutely accurate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 13, 2005)

The _ordo salutis_ according to all the Reformed Churches:

--Election
--Effectual Calling
--Regeneration (i.e., the new birth/new life)
--Conversion (which involves two sub-components, Repentance & Faith, notoriously difficult to prioritize; many times we simply say "two sides of the same coin")
--Justification (which is the application to us of the righteousness of Christ; our sins are removed and laid to Jesus' account; we are forgiven--here is where we have the formal cleansing or "sprinkling" applied individually)
--Adoption
--Sanctification
--Glorification

My earlier point--that Peter is less interested in giving an order, than he is in ennumerating some of the blessings Christians enjoy--I still maintain. The description he gives is analogous to describing a person; I may start at the head and move downward (that's rational), but shall I move to the arms before the trunk? If I move to the arms, shall I then immediately describe the other extremities (legs), before the chest? There's no "right" way to do it; the question is "What is my purpose in describing this person, and what method will best serve that end?" The order of the "fruit of the Spirit" in Gal. 5:22-23--of course we may want to find the significance, such as it is; but is this listing the "order" in _chronology_ that Christians experience the Spirit's work? Order of _importance_? Order of superiority, of quality? Is the Christian with more "kindness" than "peace" out of order? Does the order of the list have that much significance?

In the passage on which the question was asked, Peter says we are sanctified _unto_ obedience; this phrase is endlessly applicable to the whole Christian life, from its germination to glory. And sanctifed _unto_ sprinkling; we are forgiven once by the Judge, and countless times by the Father--all on the same basis. We need to understand what the point of the writer is before we can say that this list or that series describes a process from A to B. Nothing of which statement implies that I think the ordering or placement of Peter's words is pointless, immaterial, or random.

[Edited on 5-13-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 13, 2005)

Great. What is God's?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Great. What is God's?


This is an honest question, right? You want to know why your church believes this and teaches it as God's truth, right out of the Bible. OK.

For about 500 years the churches (of which you are a member) have confessed that the order above is God's order, as revealed in His Holy Scriptures. You also agreed when you signed up on the PB that you were in agreement with the confessions and catechisms of the Reformed faith which also affirm the same. But we don't always know or understand everything when we sign up for something. So, in all charity I assume nothing negative, wrong, or blameworthy about your lack of familiarity on this point. We all start off somewhere, and grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pet. 3:18).

Dead men can't do squat. And the Bible tells us everyone is naturally a spiritual dead man. Dead men can't exercise faith, repent, or do anything else. They must be brought to life, spiritual life (Regeneration). Then they can and do and will believe, repent, and grow in grace. Justification involves the direct application of the forgiveness of God and cleansing work of Christ. It is forensic (legal) in nature, and logically does follw our Conversion (between the two). *In your first post, I noticed that you conflated the aspects of Regeneration and Justification, and I felt clarification would be helpful.*

Of course, this discussion is secondary to the question of what Peter was getting at in his openning greetings to his readers. Sprinkling or cleansing of the blood of Christ has much to do with Justification, but Justification hardly exhausts the import of that sprinkling. And then there's the matter of his bringing up sanctification before he mentions obedience and cleansing. How does that affect our understanding of the passage?

My main point continues to be that the Free-willers who brought up this text in the first place to refute the Divine initiative in salvation have utterly misrepresented this passage in their quest for a proof-text.


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 13, 2005)

No, this is not an honest question... it is sarcastic. I'm sorry to shock you with such a small amount of humor. I do not wish for a repeat of the ordo salutis IAW reformed church doctrine. I always find it entertaining when we strictly adhere to the answers spoon-fed to us (although I know why).

I might add that I am aware of the PB agreement concerning the confessions and catechisms of the Reformed faith; however, sometimes, it is nice to look a little beyond 500 years of reformed teachings and see if others have differing ideas (within a reasonable limit to remain on this site).

As for my first post, I am sorry but I'm a little slow... what aspects of regeneration and justification were conflated?

I completely agree with you that free-willers use this text to refute the Divine initiative in salvation and have utterly misrepresented this passage in there quest for a proof text.

As for my understanding of 1 Peter 1:1-2, it looks like this is merely a greeting/salutation to those folks mentioned in verse 1 and the elect in verse 2. He is saying "Hello elect, I recognize that you guys, according to the foreknowledge of God, through sanctification of the Spirit, have behaved nicely and had your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience by the blood of Jesus. Grace to you and thanks for being here."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 14, 2005)

OK, I first thought it sounded sarcastic, but didn't want to assume.

Admitted as such, realize that the object of your scorn was not fitting. Its not acceptable form to admit the methods we use here as a basis for unity (confessional documents), and then demand that they be submitted to tests of reliability when it suits you. You presumed their essential conformity to Scripture when you joined. (If you reject the copious Scripture referenced in the Confessions themselves as proof for the doctrines there propounded, what else will convince you?)

Here is the conflation:


> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Your friends are correct in saying that knowledge and obedience to Jesus Christ occurs prior to being born again/justified...


If Justification by itself was referred to, then the statement could stand. But as it is presented, the statement places Regeneration (being born again) after conversion. New birth is synonymous with Regeneration. It is separated conceptually from Justification; it is logically and chronologically distinct. The speakers to which you refer are *dead wrong* when they say that knowledge and obedience occur prior to regeneration. On the contrary, without regeneration there can be no conversion whatsoever, because the dead lack the requisite faculties to exercise repentance and faith.


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 14, 2005)

Bruce, well taken and I completely agree. My initial explanation was in fact not what I meant to say. 

I tend to believe that unregenerate man has an "awareness" of God and Jesus Christ because they can see or perceive the things of God in creation... they are without excuse (Romans 1:18). They do reject God although they have an indwelling perception (although I think this is a limited awareness).

This is part of what I mean that there is knowledge prior to justification. I see regeneration as the heart transplant at which time we are given the law, the spirit and resurrected life under the terms of the New Covenant. This is the point at which you now have a heart to know God and obey His law. Obedience to law placed inside your heart and in your mind occurs prior to one's sanctification (which I see as a process). 

Hebrews 6:1-3 (which I quoted earlier) fits perfectly. The author lists repentance prior to faith towards God (hence my mention of order). I'm not too hung-up on this idea anyway. I agree with you that these could be two sides of the same coin; however one is listed before the other. The doctrine of baptisms occurs after one's faith towards God. This also supports the ordo salutis according to all the Reformed Churches.

I don't see how the order in 1 Peter 1:2 supports free will at all. First, God foreknew (election). Effectual calling is not mentioned nor is conversion, nor is justification. But he does mention that by way of sanctification of the Spirit, we have obedience to the law. And lastly we have a continual sprinkling by the blood of Jesus Christ as our High Priest (representative of the Day of Atonement and the sprinkling on the Ark of the Covenant). I believe this is simply not the initial sprinkling of our justification. This speaks of a continuous process throughout our sanctification. 

From my perspective, 1 Peter 1:2, Hebrews 6:1-3 and the ordo salutis fit together just fine. My sarcasm comes from the fact that we, as reformed believers, always tend to spurt out 500 years of church doctrine without making much reference to the actual scripture. I don't want to be given another list or church doctrine as an explanation (although they do set the guideline). You provided the list, with no specific biblical reference. Although accurate, the ordo salutis was written by man (hence there will always be speculation). Hebrews 6 and 1 Peter 1 were written by God (folks in your congregation will appreciate this more than hearing the usual blah, blah, blah of doctrinal statements). Just an opinion. 

The free-willers who point to the order are simply uninformed of the whole process altogether. I do believe the order is significant and meant to be.


----------

