I just listened to an interesting sermon by John Piper on Romans 11:7-10 ("The Elect Obtained it, the Rest Were Hardened"). I wonder if some of you would be interested in listening to it and telling me what you think.
(I downloaded the MP3 file, but you can also listen to it online in Quicktime format.) Here is the link:

http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/sermonplay.php?id=78&PHPSESSID=80aafac6caf3a5a197adc07ac3942450

Lord bless!

H

It is interesting to me how proper Biblical exegesis can go a long way toward clarifying many apsects of Biblical teaching which at first glance would appear to be perplexing. I have been reading Kenneth Wuest's exegesis of the first epistle of Peter and he makes some very insightful comments about the text. A. T. Roberston is also a great source of insight.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

I am curious about two matters.
How many people agree (or disagree) that all three Persons of the Godhead play a distinctive role in the salvation of each soul?
How does this opening salvo by Peter provide exegetical insight into the role each Person executes?
If you have done some study and reflection on first Peter verses one and particularly verse two fire away...!
I will give Ken Wuest's treatment a bit later.
Verne
p.s If any one is interested in the actual Greek text I can post that as well...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

It would seem that, in the portion of the text of v.2 which deals with eternal matters, chronological order cannot be implied.  That there is an order may only be because the constraints of human language demand it.  An alternative is that the order is one of priorities, i.e., that
- God the Father's foreknowledge of the identities of the elect takes
   precedence,
- whereupon God the Holy Spirit sets them apart for Him,
- to ultimately (in the realm of time) be cleansed with the blood of Jesus
   Christ:  God the Son.

The adjectival noun elect, is Scripturally always plural number and this is something I better understood after reading Wuest.
This legitimately raises the question of whether it is proper to talk about election with regard to individuals. (foreknowledge is different as we shall see)
I think I now have a better grasp of why Arminians reject Romans 9 and the example of Jacob and Essau and invoke a national as opposed to individual application.
I must say though that I still disagree with their position.
The Spirit of God cited Jacob and Essau as individuals in giving the example.
The notion that the elect, comprises individuals from the class of those already redeemed is fallacious and betrays a total lack of understanding of what the word of God is saying about this. Of course this is what Georgie boy taught so what would one expect from his confused disciples? Join in folks. We are all in learning mode here are we not?  
Verne

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,


We therefore see that certainly in the NT the teaching of election is generally applied to a group.
In Ephesians four the group is indentified as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

This group is elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
According is kata and has a root significance of "down", which in turn implies domination. That is to say, the choice of God is dominated by the foreknowledge of God.
The implication here is critical.
One has to rightly understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about foreknowledge.
Failure to do so generally leads to serious error on the matter of election.
Verne

Not exactly. I am saying (and I think your question illustrates this) that not everyone that says foreknowledge is talking about the same thing. In fact the case can be made that it does not always have the exact same meaning in Scripture in the various places it occurs.
I will try and show that from both  context and syntax shortly. Your insights are welcome Tom.
I am pretty much thinking out loud here.  



Indeed! String theory is now mathematically positing many co-existing dimensions.
Not too long ago this was entirely the realm of science fantasy!
We are limited in assessing God's doings as we cannot do so but from our own space-time constraint. A kind of Heisenberg uncertainty principle eh?
Difficult to see how we could infer provable truth from any other perspective.
Verne
p.s. Hebrews very specifically tells us that our particular space-time fabric is going to be rolled up like a garment. This kind of incredible imagery is repeated in Revelation where the robes of the saints are their righeous acts, viz. that which has been woven, so to speak, in the fabric of space-time. Pretty awseome stuff...!
It makes our day-to-day choices take on a whole different perspective...possibly the very threads of our future spiritual sartorial splendor as it were...
I know I am waxing a little poetic here but these are incredible considerations...pardon me while I tingle with excitement...

Foreknowledge is an interesting word in the Scriptural text. We get our English word prognosticate from it. The English word essentially means to accurately forecast future events or conditions. Many interpret the Scriptural significance to be " having previous knowledge".

The specific word is used only twice in the entire NT. The cognate verb is used five times.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

If you are of the opinion that there is no distinction in the way these NT passages use this term you will have one view of election.
If you draw a distinction based on context and syntax, again, how you view elction will depend on the kind of distinction that you draw, namely, the way you define foreknowledge in those instances.
Alford, Robertson and Wuest all agree that the meaning is not the same in all of these verses. Indeed, even a non-scholar such as myself simply reading the English text could readily arrive at that conslusion, apart from any technical linguistic considerations.
They contend that the nouns in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2 and the verbs in Romans 8:29, 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:20 go far beyond the classical meaning of "having previous knowledge", and is in fact defined for us in Scripture itself.
Verne

That the Father exercised prerogative seems unquestionable.  Would you expound upon why you consider it preemptive?  Preemptive of what?  And how so?

Thanks,
al