Observations on 1st Peter, chapter 1

[Starise]

1 minute ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

That is true. I "complain" when people quote "I know the plans I have for you" as if it was written to them, when it has a specific audience. This issue is always something to consider. The 10 commandments were given to Moses for the people is Israel, therefore we need not pay attention to them or learn from them? Matthew 24 & 25 (the Olivet discourse) were given to the disciples. Some would say this if just for them, or this was just for Jerusalem, or just for the Jews, etc. 

I think the Bible was written to instruct and inform mankind. Though not everything in it, is applicable to every situation or individual, there is something to be learned from it anyway. Jesus said to His disciples, to make other disciples and teach them everything He taught them. From things like that, I assume that Matt 24 os for me to read also. Revelation is to specific congregation that existed in the time of John. You see where this is going. If we really want to focus on who the audience was said to me for, my Bible reading list just God real Short. Luke and Acts was to an individual, Romans was to the church at Rome, etc.

We need to be mindful of intended audiences of the human writers, but discerning of who God might want to receive his word. I could develope this further, but there is no need, I think that point is made. I am sorry if I mislead anyone in this thread by not considering who Peter was writing to specifically.

Point well taken unless it changes the dynamic of the text for US. Many of the passages you mention do not specifically point to a group and we only know the group from further study of the text. Many texts are more sweeping in nature.

Actually the 10 commandments were focused more to only two later on, and nowhere are we told to omit God's intention with respect to the 10 commandments. Many of the rules in the NT re enforce the 10 commandments.

"I think the Bible was written to instruct and inform mankind. Though not everything in it, is applicable to every situation or individual, there is something to be learned from it anyway."

I agree. What are you trying to get us all to learn from a text that is very specific?

Are you saying none of us has any say in what we are or become? This seems to be all I read over and over and over again in numerous posts. Hammering away at it is an understatement.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

52 minutes ago, Starise said:

I agree. What are you trying to get us all to learn from a text that is very specific?

Are you saying none of us has any say in what we are or become? This seems to be all I read over and over and over again in numerous posts. Hammering away at it is an understatement.

If I had it to do over, I probably would not have posted it. I just happened to be reading it (1 Pet 1) and a bunch of verses hopped off that page at me, which I did not recall having noticed before. I probably had just posted or read something in one of the soteriology threads, so that topic was in the back of my mind. So much in 1 Pet 1 relates to that, and when I noticed that I thought to bold some part of the text that were relevant, and I pointed out after the text, the implications of what I had bolded, that was the "observations". I thought, why not share this with others? Since it as all one chapter, not a topical post as such, putting it in the Study Group section seemed appropriate.

I am probably overly passionate about the aspects of what many people call Calvinism, because I have a certain amount of zealousness about God getting all the glory for saving people. People often write or talk about topics -  like "predestination" as one example. When we do topical studies, we run the risk of getting off course. We start selecting verses which support what we already believe, or "prove" the case we are presenting. In this process, we can easily overlook, or even ignore verses that do not fit our narrative.

We see this same sort of principle, in our news media (at least in the U.S.) where our writers have stopped reporting, and are instead becoming commentators with an agenda. They report what supports their cause and leave out anything that contradicts it. This confirmation bias, is something we as Christians can also get sucked into when we write about a topic, instead of exegeting a passage.

Being involved in a lot of these discussions in the last several years, I see that we are driven by passion, and do not seem willing to seriously consider the other persons evidence - we exclude what goes against our prejudices. I am sure you have seen it, we all have who are paying attention.

For that reason, I just started a thread about the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, trying to basically describe them, making an effort to do it even handedly. I am not sure if that will work, so far no one has nibbled! Good question that you asked, thanks!

 

[Michael37]

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

That is true. I "complain" when people quote "I know the plans I have for you" as if it was written to them, when it has a specific audience.

Yes, well, when it comes to Scripture application, a serious literalist abhors all but the local context.

However, Scripture itself points to the general application and applicability of Scripture beyond its local context, and many are guided by the Holy Spirit through the quickening of such.

Rom 4:22-25  And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.  (23)  Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;  (24)  But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;  (25)  Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom 15:4  For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1Co 9:9-10  For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it for the oxen that God cares,  (10)  or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope.

1Co 10:11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

[Starise]

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

If I had it to do over, I probably would not have posted it. I just happened to be reading it (1 Pet 1) and a bunch of verses hopped off that page at me, which I did not recall having noticed before. I probably had just posted or read something in one of the soteriology threads, so that topic was in the back of my mind. So much in 1 Pet 1 relates to that, and when I noticed that I thought to bold some part of the text that were relevant, and I pointed out after the text, the implications of what I had bolded, that was the "observations". I thought, why not share this with others? Since it as all one chapter, not a topical post as such, putting it in the Study Group section seemed appropriate.

I am probably overly passionate about the aspects of what many people call Calvinism, because I have a certain amount of zealousness about God getting all the glory for saving people. People often write or talk about topics -  like "predestination" as one example. When we do topical studies, we run the risk of getting off course. We start selecting verses which support what we already believe, or "prove" the case we are presenting. In this process, we can easily overlook, or even ignore verses that do not fit our narrative.

We see this same sort of principle, in our news media (at least in the U.S.) where our writers have stopped reporting, and are instead becoming commentators with an agenda. They report what supports their cause and leave out anything that contradicts it. This confirmation bias, is something we as Christians can also get sucked into when we write about a topic, instead of exegeting a passage.

Being involved in a lot of these discussions in the last several years, I see that we are driven by passion, and do not seem willing to seriously consider the other persons evidence - we exclude what goes against our prejudices. I am sure you have seen it, we all have who are paying attention.

For that reason, I just started a thread about the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism, trying to basically describe them, making an effort to do it even handedly. I am not sure if that will work, so far no one has nibbled! Good question that you asked, thanks!

 

Admittedly I don't probably have the same drive on some of these topics because I myself see them as mysterious in many ways and therefore have given up totally understanding how the inner working of what God does works on the inside.

I apologize for my vitriol on the subject of election. I still have not reconciled too many passages that seem in direct contrast to the idea and the 'middle ground' is a mystery to me. I don't just think it's a mystery to me, I think it's a mystery period.

Where you see men powerless to make their own salvation or even move in that direction, I might agree, however I would allow the creator gives us a decision and you might see that as giving men credit for control they don't have.

Another thing you have repeatedly said is that you're really not a Calvinist. T.U.L.I.P. then would not be something you follow? I guess I need to read you closer to see what I'm missing because as I see it we either believe we have zero control to come to God or we believe God lets us come to Him, yet we allow that God draws us. The chapter above as read all alone would indicate a great degree of control by God and none by us "If" read all alone, and "IF" the context is directed at all men and using these men as an example. Maybe it's really as simple as God knowing who will do what, so He bases His decisions on what He knows. This does not disqualify a decision. It simply takes into account further developments based on that decision.

For every election scripture, we will find many other "whosoever will" "any who will" and "any" which pretty much sums up all men.

If you have a 'between the cracks' teaching ion the subject that somehow omits T.U.L.I.P. as the main basis, I would like to see it.

I'll check out your link. I'm not so sure any of it will lead to good positive warm things ( just being real here). This is based on my past experience with these kinds of discussions.

[Your closest friendnt]

27 minutes ago, Michael37 said:

Yes, well, when it comes to Scripture application, a serious literalist abhors all but the local context.

However, Scripture itself points to the general application and applicability of Scripture beyond its local context, and many are guided by the Holy Spirit through the quickening of such.

Rom 4:22-25  And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.  (23)  Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;  (24)  But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;  (25)  Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Rom 15:4  For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1Co 9:9-10  For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it for the oxen that God cares,  (10)  or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope.

1Co 10:11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

It was spoken from the Lord God to his people...the people who were under the Law.  

The people who were in Covenant with him and who would probably be under duress for violating the Covenant and were waiting for their Judgment and then the Lord God spoke to them words of comford.

[Michael37]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Another thing you have repeatedly said is that you're really not a Calvinist. T.U.L.I.P. then would not be something you follow? I guess I need to read you closer to see what I'm missing because as I see it we either believe we have zero control to come to God or we believe God lets us come to Him, yet we allow that God draws us.

This could get interesting.

If it walks like a Calvinist, and talks like a Calvinist, why is it NOT a Calvinist?

Because it chooses not to be.

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Another thing you have repeatedly said is that you're really not a Calvinist. T.U.L.I.P. then would not be something you follow?

A fair question and I don't have a great answer. I am not yet settled on what I think about some of these things. maybe I should express that, but that would be off topic here really. I say I am not a Calvinist for several reasons (several for why I refuse the label.

One, I don't know every position that Calvin had.
Two, I have hardly read anything from Calvin.
Three, what people call Calvinism, they usually are referring to the T.U.L.I.P.
Four, Calvin did not originate the T.U.L.I.P. and never even heard of it, so how is that Calvinism
The T.U.L.I.P. is an shortened expression of the doctrines concerning salvation of the Dutch Reformed Church of hundreds of yeas ago, so it is Dutchreformedchurchism, not Calvinism.
Five, I think Calvin was a bright theologian, but kind of a creep in character in some ways, so I would rather not be assosiated with his name.
Six, Paul let us know that following people what a poor idea, and pointed instead, to following Christ, so, I do call myself a Christian.
Seven, I get my specific beliefs, from what Jesus said, and from what his Apostles said, primarily John, Paul, and Peter and so some degree, what God has said in the old Testament.

Quote

I apologize for my vitriol on the subject of election. 

Well, that is nice of you, but I sure am not going to worry about that.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

For every election scripture, we will find many other "whosoever will" "any who will" and "any" which pretty much sums up all men.

I don't know if that is exactly true, are there more of those than election ones? I have not counted, but keeping score is not how we decide truth, is it? I think when we see those sorts of thing, and we think they contradict each other, we are just demonstrating that we do not understand them, and it is probably true, that we do not understand them. I am not willing to throw in the towel and give up: "Oh, i don't get it, might as well not try to reconcile these, I am too stupid (hypothetical me, not a reflection of you) to understand, and God's Spirit is not able to give me understanding!" My approach is to struggle with the texts, find all of them that see to relate to the questions, and then after prayerful consideration, see if there is not some way that these can me reconciled so they harmonize.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

If you have a 'between the cracks' teaching ion the subject that somehow omits T.U.L.I.P. as the main basis, I would like to see it.

Well, I have been working on that for over 7 years now I think. Before that time I don't think I had much understanding of these things at all, I really had not done my study, I glibly would have called myself a Calminian, and I suppose that is sort of where I am again. However, in those days, I was an ignorant Calminian, now I am a better informed Calminian.

3 hours ago, Starise said:

I'll check out your link. I'm not so sure any of it will lead to good positive warm things ( just being real here). This is based on my past experience with these kinds of discussions.

. . . and indeed you did, I saw your reply, lol.

Maybe I will make a thread, to discuss Calminianism.

[enoob57]

It did not start with dutch it started in 4th century Augustianism...

[Omegaman 3.0]

8 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

It did not start with dutch it started in 4th century Augustianism...

Actually you are sort of right, in terms of the ideas, though I would say that Augustine got his ideas from the Bible. However, I was referring to the T.U.L.I.P. specifically. I never see people discussing Augustinianism or the 5 points of Augustine!

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, Michael37 said:

This could get interesting.

If it walks like a Calvinist, and talks like a Calvinist, why is it NOT a Calvinist?

Because it chooses not to be.

I get it, lol!