New Thoughts (05/13/14-05/19/14)
Who is he writing to? (05/15/14)
Who exactly Peter is addressing in this letter is topic of debate. Many of the commentators, Calvin among them, feel that Peter is primarily addressing the Jewish believers in Asia Minor. He is, after all, primarily the apostle to the Jews. Over against this, though, note is taken of the several places where Peter addresses issues that would be unlikely to find application in that community. Matters of gross idolatry such as are discussed as past lifestyle would not apply.
I am not convinced we can draw a definite conclusion on the subject. I do find it rather odd that he would use the Greek form of the name given him by Jesus if he were addressing a primarily Jewish group. Would it not be far more natural for him to have identified himself as Cephas? Even Paul tends toward using that name when speaking of Peter. One could argue that Paul did this by way of reinforcing their roles: He to the Gentiles, Cephas to the Jews. But, there is no real evidence for this sort of animosity. Indeed, Paul is found staunchly proclaiming the fact that neither of them, nor Apollos for all that, are of consequence – only Jesus.
Let me lay out the case for a primarily Jewish audience. The first thing pointed to by most supporters of this view is the use of the term diasporas. This is certainly a term which would carry a certain resonance in Jewish ears. But, it is combined with eklektois, which I would hear with a wider application. I must say, though, that this may be a 20th century understanding read back into the text. However, that is a term Paul had invested with a great deal of meaning and it is certain that Paul has had a great influence on the churches of that region.
So, then, with that combination of terms, I do not think we have a sufficient case built. No doubt, Peter uses diasporas with thought to all that would imply to a Jewish mind, for that is what he possesses: a Jewish mind. But, that does not require us to suppose he intends to address an exclusively or even primarily Jewish audience. What it does indicate is authenticity, that we are reading a letter written in Peter’s voice.
What other arguments do we have, then? Matthew Henry offers the theory that the Jewish communities in those regions would have been descended from the exiles in Babylon. I lose the thread somewhat, but if I understand him correctly, the idea is that there was certainly a large Jewish community in Babylon long after Israel returned from exile. In fact, the argument goes that this community is exactly why Peter is in Babylon at the time of this letter’s writing in the first place. When Antiochus of Syria took the city, he scattered many of those Jews who remained to other locations up in Asia Minor. Such a relocation of population is certainly in keeping with general practice for conquering forces. This, it is said, took place some 200 years prior to Christ coming. So, the communities are firmly established. (Consider that this is not all that much less time than the entire history of our nation has occupied.)
The JFB commentary takes note of the order in which the several provinces are listed, particularly as it contrasts with the order of mention in Acts 2:9. The order here, they suggest, is the natural order in which a person in Babylon would tend to think of them, being the approximate order in which those provinces would be encountered by one traveling from Babylon. In fact, they note, the Parthians mentioned in that passage from Acts were likely the very Jews Peter was ministering to over in Babylon at the time. This leads some, such as the authors of the Wycliffe commentary, to assert rather firmly that Peter is now writing (and presumably ministering as well) to a group who consist in part of those who had heard his first sermon at Pentecost.
I had concluded, in my first pass through the material, that those to whom he was writing were unlikely to have ‘any history with Peter’. That may be too strong a statement. I am still not convinced that they have a great deal of history, but it is certainly possible that they do indeed have in their number those who have heard Peter preach. It’s even possible he’s been through the area, although we have no record of such a journey. It’s also possible, even probable, that John Mark, whose greeting is applied to this letter, has been through. This John Mark has been with both Peter and Paul, and he was involved with the planting of at least some of these congregations. He may be the connecting thread that has led to Peter writing.
Overall, I remain convinced that Peter is writing to a wider audience and he knows it. His imagery may well draw on Jewish history – how could it not? But, this does not require that he is writing with a special concern for that portion of the church. Rather, I would hold that he is taking that imagery and applying it on a wider scale. With Barnes, I would agree that he is probably drawing from Abraham’s confession: “I am a stranger and a sojourner with you” (Ge 23:4). He was a foreigner with no home and no possessions in the land. Some portion of those churches to which he writes were people who were physically in that same situation: Temporary residents of the provinces. But, more fully, all who are in the church can (or should) have the same perspective.
Think of Paul’s words to the church in Philippi, a city proud of its Roman status. “Our citizenship is in heaven, from whence we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Php 3:20). Whatever our earthly citizenship, then, it is secondary. Whether relocated from our native lands or lifelong residents of the same location, we are all of us strangers and aliens in this land, all of us sojourners seeking a city whose builder is the Lord. In other words, Peter is describing not their physical lot, but their spiritual reality. We are called as strangers and pilgrims, called to be strangers and pilgrims.
But here, it is worth noting what we are not. We are not monastics. We are not called to separate ourselves out. This is a constant temptation for the believer. Living with the lost is hard. That is, after all, the whole reason for Peter’s writing. They don’t like us, and their habits present a continual temptation to us. “Woe is me, for I sojourn in Meshech, for I dwell among the tents of Kedar! Too long has my soul had its dwelling with those who hate peace” (Ps 120:5-6).
What to do? We long to withdraw to safety, to a place where we can surround ourselves with like-minded people of faith and not be bothered any longer. But, this is not our calling. Our calling is to be in the world even though no longer of the world. I am no more in the world, yet they are in the world as I come to You (Jn 17:11). The world has hated them because they are not of the world, just like Me. Yet, I do not ask you to take them out of the world, only to keep them from the evil one (Jn 17:14-15). In but not of: Resident aliens living alongside the natives.
This is our mission, to serve as witnesses in the world; to seed the nations with the hope of Christ. It is no easy task, nor one that will lead to great appreciation and acclaim – at least not from this life. The Christian who seeks fame and glory can only find it by abandoning Christianity. The Christian who seeks to protect his faith by withdrawing into holy seclusion may hold onto faith, but he has relinquished mission. He has become a disobedient slave, a wasted investment.
Rather, we might see ourselves as sharing in part with the status of Peter. Peter writes simply as ‘an apostle of Jesus Christ’. He proffers no further authentication, no further ground for a hearing. Why should he? To be an apostle of Christ is to be one authorized by Christ.
Understand, and understand clearly that the Apostles had a unique authorization. They had an entirely unique gifting and an entirely unique role in the establishment of the Church. To them was granted the right of revelation and to them alone. We have no cause to be looking for a return of this office. I would hold we have no cause to expect even a restoration of what we might term lower-case apostles. To be sure, Scripture admits to such, and I suppose it cannot be ruled out as a possibility. But, to make such a restoration a focus for ministry? To what end? It serves little purpose other than to feed the ego, and the ego is hardly in need of feeding.
What I would suggest we share with Peter is this: We are likewise authorized by Christ. We have the self-same mission set before us: Go and make disciples. Teach them everything I taught you, and bring them into obedience to it. Look! That very commission is right there in the greeting. You are chosen, sanctified that you may obey. You are the results of somebody else’s missionary work, their obedience to the great commission. What do you suppose you ought to do with that?
While it remains true that the fundamental theme of this letter concerns perseverance under suffering, it is not perseverance as an end in itself, nor is it suffering to no purpose. Peter is writing a strong reminder of both the mission of Christianity and the means by which that mission is pursued. We are each of us authorized by Christ for the sphere of operations in which He has set us. We do well to bound that with, “Thus far and no further” (Job 38:11). We are servants, not captains. We are authorized, but only to the degree that we pursue the authorized course of action. We have a mission, and the sole means of fulfilling it is to lay hold of that sanctifying work of the Spirit which empowers our obedience to Him whom we call our Lord: Jesus the Christ, the Messiah of God’s election.
Whence Election? (05/16/14-05/17/14)
In the course of identifying his audience, Peter sets out a point of doctrine that has been one of the most debated in the history of the Church. He refers to his readers as those “who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” But, what does he mean by this? It is the question of the ages, so far as Church history goes. Are we dealing with predestination? If so, what does that mean exactly? How are we to understand that status as chosen, and what is it that Peter means by God’s foreknowledge? For my own part, I feel I have settled these questions to my satisfaction long since. It was a battle back when I was studying Romans, but the logic of Paul’s writing and of certain of the commentaries upon that text led me to the inexorable – if uncomfortable – conclusion that predestination means pretty much exactly what it would seem to mean. God determined it, ordained it, and because He is sovereign God, it shall be so.
This does not remove the challenges inherent to the doctrine, though. Adam Clarke looks at the dangerous abuses that adhere to such a view and finds the abuses too severe to allow the view. He looks at the typically Calvinist understanding of predestination and finds that to describe predestination thus is to tempt men to assume an election that is not truly theirs, or, as he puts it, “to assume their election on the slimmest grounds.” It is a valid concern. It is, in fact, a concern so valid that most any preacher that holds to such a view of predestination recognizes it and, as Paul himself does, carefully explains the matter so as to remove the basis for misunderstanding.
It comes back to who God is, what it means to be God. If God is sovereign, all-knowing and all-powerful, then it cannot be but that what He decrees assuredly comes to pass. Reversing the sense, if God’s decrees are not assured of happening, we have no cause to expect salvation. Everything remains contingent and we are just as lost today as we were before we came to what we understand as faith. Further, I would maintain that if God cannot be guaranteed that His decrees are certain then He is no god at all. That is the final straw in this. If God does not predestine, if His salvation is an offer contingent upon my actions, then He is not God, I am. I have final control, and the one who has final control is, in the end, the one who is god. But, it doesn’t require a great deal of introspection to recognize that I most assuredly am not the one with final control. Even if I were inclined to such an opinion the circumstances of my own call to faith would suffice to make it clear that I am not in such a position of control over my own life, let alone that of any other living being.
We need some definition. This is a challenging bit of doctrine and if we cannot agree on the terms then discussion becomes a futile talking past one another. The first term we need to assess is that of being chosen, or elect: eklektois. The very term speaks of choice, although as an adjective we could more properly say it speaks to the result of choice. To be chosen means somebody did the choosing. Peter points to that somebody with kata – according to: The one following from the other. So, then election follows from foreknowledge.
A quick aside here: Looking at these two verses, hoping for some syntactical clues, I am struck by the fact that there is but one verb to be found in the entire passage, and that is the ‘be in fullest measure’ of Peter’s blessing. All the rest of this is constructed from nouns and adjectives. Chosen is a noun. Foreknowledge is a noun. The sanctifying work is a noun. Even the sprinkling is a noun. It is not ‘be sprinkled’. It is sprinkling. I don’t see that there’s any deep significance to this, but it is curious.
Returning to the thread: Our state as the elect is predicated upon the foreknowledge of God. It follows from that foreknowledge. Worded differently, were it not for the foreknowledge of God, there would be no elect. There are two verses from John’s gospel that would seem to establish the point. All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me. I assuredly will not cast out the one who comes to Me (Jn 6:37). This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted by the Father (Jn 6:65). Let us understand what has been stated there. You cannot come to Christ apart from the Father having previously granted it. Further, let it be understood that whom God grants to come has been given to the Son, and we see that it is impossible that he cannot fail to come to Christ. “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Ro 9:16).
So, then, election is by God’s foreknowledge, and I think you will find that most every theologian has accepted this point. How can they do otherwise without denying the clear text of Scripture? What has happened, then, is that debate has arisen over just what it means to foreknow. Barnes is careful to note that on the basis of this passage nothing can be said as concerns the nature of foreknowledge, only that God’s foreknowledge is involved in the process. The immediate point we might take, as he sees it, is that election is not a matter of blind chance. However, he appends this thought: Is it really possible for a thing foreknown to remain contingent or doubtful? Honestly, if there remained any possibility of an alternate outcome then it was not foreknowledge at all, was it? It was but a theory at best, an opinion or noting of one possibility among many. To reduce the term to such an understanding would seem to remove all meaning from it whatsoever.
But, what then is foreknowledge? Some argue for a theory of foreknowledge that means little more than that God, being outside of time, has seen the whole of history as one moment. He knows how you will respond to stimuli, what decisions you have already (from His perspective) made, and therefore knows whether or not you will have accepted what He offers. This leaves salvation and election in the hands of the believer. Unless you believe, the argument goes, the offer of salvation is of no particular value to you. That’s true, so far as it goes, but in leaving man in control it has demoted God and that cannot stand. If man is above God then God is not worthy of consideration, never mind worship.
This view typically comes as a bulwark against viewing man as an automaton devoid of free will. It is sensed, as one can gather from Clarke’s concerns, that if God’s will is so irresistible then we cannot be held responsible. If salvation is by God’s choice alone, then there is no basis for punishing the sinner. He had no more choice in his reprobate state than we had in our state of salvation. There is a grain of truth to that. It is true that neither had more choice than the other. What is not true is that neither chose. Be it accepted that there was no possibility of us making any other choice and yet, each of us chose of our own free will. Luther would argue that we who have been called by the Father chose with a will far freer than the sinner who remains condemned, that we never knew a truly free will until God sovereignly moved upon us that we might see there was a choice in the first place.
But again, if God has but seen how we will choose, how things will play out as we make our various contingent decisions, He is not truly in control. He’s just in possession of superior technology. But, the reality is that for God to foreknow is to have prearranged matters. If He foreknows it is because He has ordained the thing. He has issued His decree on the event and that decree having been issued, it is impossible that it should fail to come to pass. Yet, we remain involved. It is a mystery, an aspect of God’s workings that I dare say He has chosen not to share with us. But, it is clearly the case that while our election is sure yet it is a matter of our choice. We choose. We choose gladly. Yet, we could not choose otherwise. Ask any who has chosen, whether for God or against, and they will surely tell you there was no chance they would choose any other way. It may turn out they are wrong in that assessment and that they, as did I, will find themselves choosing God after all. It is surely to be hoped that they will do so. Here’s the thing of which I am quite certain: If God has chosen you, you will choose Him, and it will be unthinkable to you as anything other than an intellectual exercise that you would ever choose otherwise.
I found Matthew Henry’s observation on this matter interesting. He notes that the scientist who can calculate the date of an eclipse does not thereby cause the eclipse to occur. His point in this is that if God’s foreknowledge consists only that such calculation, such observation of unfolding events, then He cannot be the cause of election. I would add to this that if He is not the cause of election, then election cannot possibly be certain, and if election is not certain then neither is hope. Indeed, if God is not the cause of election then we are still under the Law, and stand universally condemned even as before. The point, then, is that foreknowledge must lead us to the determining counsel of God. Foreknowledge is foreordination, as the JFB sets the point. It is not merely God’s awareness of events outside of Himself.
Barnes is insistent on the point that Peter’s addressing of his readers as chosen or elect is but a statement of fact. It does not get at the purpose of election. Peter’s purpose in the term is more involved with establishing election as an accomplished reality. In his view, we cannot, based on this text alone, state anything regarding God having previously purposed to choose them. We can only declare that He has done so. Peter does not speak to the reason behind His choosing. Again, I would note that the term we have here is a noun, not a verb. It is a fact not an action. In light of that, the emphasis Barnes promotes would seem right.
We may not have mention of the reason for election here, but we do get some teaching on the means by which election is brought to fruition. Peter draws the connection for us in verse 2. Election is by the foreknowledge of the Father – step 1. “No one can come to me except the Father calls him.” But, there is a step 2: The Spirit makes him holy. In Barnes’ view, this is bringing the purpose of election into effect. We could word it differently and say this is the purpose. But, I would note that we are looking at the term en, which speaks more to the instrumentality, the means. In this instance, Barnes says, we are not talking about the progressive sanctification which defines the life of the elect. We are talking about the instantaneous work of the Spirit which was accomplished at our election: The renewing of the Spirit. The JFB speaks of this as the Spirit certifying our election.
What we can say with certainty, which I will explore more fully in later paragraphs, is that the connection between election, sanctification, and the effectiveness of the sprinkled blood of Jesus is clear and cannot be severed. It is the three together or it is none at all. The work of salvation is, after all, a Trinitarian project. Each Person of the Godhead has His established and agreed-upon role in the saving of the sinner, and preserving him to Life.
What About Him? (05/17/14-05/18/14)
Before I pursue the purpose of election further, though, it is needful to consider the degree to which one may know the fact of election. This is a big sticking point. Can we be sure, and if so, how? This is, or should be, a big question for those who serve as elders and pastors. How can we hope to assess our members? We cannot even safely assess ourselves half the time! The heart, after all, is desperately sick (Jer 2:24), more deceptive than all else. So, if we cannot trust our self-assessment, how can we hope to assess others? In truth, we cannot. We certainly cannot do so infallibly.
Election being a matter determined by God’s sovereign grace on an individual basis, we are already at a severe handicap to know. What we are clear about is that it was not our worthiness that drew His saving attention our way. Indeed, we are told point blank that we shall never have cause to boast in the presence of God. If salvation is by grace, it is a gift. If it is a gift, it could not be earned. That would be wages, and the only wages we have earned are those of sin. But, if we cannot point to an deserving cause in ourselves, how can we expect to find cause in another? We cannot.
Return, though, to the work of the Spirit in this matter of election. The JFB speaks of it as the Spirit certifying an individual’s election to life. That is to say, where there is election there will be clearly visible effect. It is impossible that a man should be transformed into a temple of the Living God and not show this transformation in any outward observable fashion. Where the Spirit is, there must be His fruits growing. Where there are no fruits, there is no Spirit. Where there is no Spirit, there is no election.
That is not to suggest we cannot be fooled. We clearly can and often are. It is this, first and foremost I think, that disturbs those who reject the idea of predestination. We all know examples, I suspect: Those who were clearly walking with God (as we measure things) but have walked away in what would seem to be no uncertain terms. He was such a faithful brother, so involved, such an example of Christian living! And now? He’s off living in sin. How can that be? How can you look upon that and say that one cannot lose God’s election?
Well, to begin with, such a view assumes a far greater capacity for sound judgment than any man truly possesses. It assumes one can fully assess the character of a man based on what that man chooses to make known of himself. Think about it. For every heinous criminal brought to justice, there are any number of neighbors and family members who will testify with full assurance as to the accuracy of their assessment that, “He was always such a good boy; always helpful, always cheerful. I just can’t believe he would do something like this.” Do you suppose that involvement in the church alters that somehow? Do you suppose that one’s willingness to sit in a pew, or even serve on committees and mentor others automatically renders that one more transparent, more real? Don’t be fooled! Indeed, I would not doubt that if you were to truly assess your own behavior in church-related activities you would have to say that they are different than your behaviors in other arenas of life. Are there exceptions to this? I’m sure there are. I may – may – even know a few. Or, I may be fooled again.
Let me suggest this: The evidence of the Spirit, while it may be of some benefit for those who are given the task of assessing our validity, is not primarily for their benefit. It is for ours. We alone have a chance of assessing the evidence. We at least have a chance of knowing whether we’re putting on airs or seeing the real man. This need not be taken as hypocrisy, although that is certainly a risk. It has far more to do with the struggle of the believer who, like Paul, sees that too often, we do what we do not wish to do, and do not do what we wish we did (Ro 7:19). There has been that instantaneous work of sanctification, but the old man remains, and we are growing day to day, struggling day to day, suffering setbacks day to day, but pressing on towards the goal by the Spirit’s constant assistance.
What we cannot possibly know with certainty is the status of any other man’s election. We can make our best assessment, but we dare not assume we are correct one way or the other. As we shepherd God’s church, we seek to assess as best we may, but always knowing that we are able to be deceived. We are ever aware that the visible church is a mixture – wheat and tares together (Mt 13:24-30). The one is wholesome and good. The other is poisonous. And yet they look so nearly alike as to be indistinguishable under any but the most thorough inspection, particularly prior to being fully ripened and ready for harvest. Thus did Jesus depict His church, and He did so by way of warning us against hasty judgment. Don’t think to rip those out whom you deem false. Even if you are correct, you may well damage the true in removing the false. The false will show their falsity in time and be removed. But, leave God’s work to God, Who judges truly and finally.
We are not granted to inquire much into the condition of our fellow Christian, says the JFB. I would emphasize ‘much’. It is not that we do not inquire at all. Where is exhortation and admonition if that is the case? Clearly, Paul and John saw fit to turn some away from the doors of the Church. We cannot hope to safeguard the flock if we are not assessing those who come our way, whether as teachers or as simple sheep. However, in our assessment, we must be charitable, I think, as Peter is charitable here.
Peter certainly cannot have known with certainty that everyone to whom he wrote was truly elect. Yet, he addresses them as such. Why? Well, in large part, I suspect, because the pressures they had already endured on account of their faith would have long since sufficed to drive out any who were not truly committed to Christ. In short, there was evidence. The impact of the Spirit on their lives was clear. He had the testimony of two: Silvanus and Mark to confirm this. He had the testimony of their continued meeting in Christ’s name to confirm this. He had their perseverance under fire to confirm this. But, to say he knew with certainty? No. That we cannot aver.
Thus, Calvin advises that we ought not to take Peter as making any such claim here. He is addressing them from the point of charity rather than faith, and here is an example for us: Where there is some evidence of election, we assume it valid until proven otherwise. And what is the prime evidence? Entry into the church, separation from the world. On what basis would we take this as some sort of proof? After all, it seems to me that in our day many a church member sees himself as member of little more than a social club. But, add in believer’s baptism. Add that in when the believer is in a land hostile to Christianity (as opposed to the general dislike we experience here.) When it may be a life-ending decision to choose Life, that choice carries some serious weight, don’t you think?
Those to whom Peter wrote may not have faced execution for their choice. By most reports, this letter’s date precedes that of the most serious persecutions. But, they were dealing with being ostracized, perhaps losing their ability to earn a living. They were being rejected from society – and here, we draw nearer the current American experience, I think. They were paying a price for being publicly identified as believing in and belonging to Christ. Surely, one who has risked this much deserves a charitable hearing from the Church; at least to the point of there being incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. And even then, I might add, who can claim to know with certainty what God may do in the future?
There is, indeed, a sin unto death, and most would accept that this sin consists in blaspheming the Spirit. Others would say that it consists in rejecting the work of Christ having once professed faith. Either of these can find Scriptural support. At the same time, though, I wonder if we would not reduce the population of the true Church to zero on the basis of these evaluations. I wonder, for all that, if we are any more capable of judging what truly equates to blaspheming the Spirit or trampling the Cross. It is, in the end, in God’s hands to determine the elect, and to hold them firm until the end. “I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and show compassion on whom I will show compassion” (Ex 33:19).
Here, I would note, Calvin and Clarke are in agreement. Calvin says Peter speaks from charity. Clarke says those addressed are ‘entitled to all the privileges of the people of God’, having believed the Gospel and become part of the visible church. Again, there is that hook of the visible church. We guard it as best we may, but we know it is an admixture. At the same time, we know there is a cost to becoming part of the visible church. The world will hate you (Jn 15:18-19). The form and intensity of the hatred may vary, but the reality will not.
So, then: We cannot know with certainty the elect status of any other. As concerns ourselves, the risk of which Clarke is so concerned is real. That is not to say, however, that we can never be sure of salvation. It is to say that too many make the case for their salvation based on faulty assessments. It is true, as Barnes says, that, “No man can penetrate the secret counsels of the Almighty.” We cannot peer into heaven and check inside the Book of Life to make certain our name is there. Neither ought we to take something by way of a dream, rapture or vision as sufficient evidence.
Here, I feel I need to stop and look back at my own conversion once again. To be sure there was something in the nature of a rapture or vision involved. In so much as I was hearing a voice in my head specifying a certain set of instructions for the weekend ahead, I could hardly say I came to Christ based on this man’s preaching or that one’s admonitions. It was a fairly direct intervention. There were those propositions made, a means for testing His reality if it was indeed Him who was speaking. If I did not know God better, I would say that this was the only way He was going to reach me. He knew my propensities and matched His call perfectly to them.
But, He did not leave me there. He did not even leave me with the coincidences of that weekend as the sole basis for faith. It was a starting point, yes; a catalyst if you like. But, it was not the foundation. That said, it has been an unshakable point for me, and has, in many cases, proven a means for testing the validity of certain theological positions. If the theology cannot account for and accord with the facts of my own conversion, then one of two things must be true: Either the theology is flawed or my conversion is not a reality. At this stage in my life, the latter is not in question, which leaves the former as the answer. It’s proven handy, for many promote theological systems that would deny the way I was called. At bare minimum, it makes it impossible to hold that the primary impetus for salvation lies with the seeker. I wasn’t seeking. I was sought. Neither is salvation built on deep theological understandings. I didn’t even understand the theological implications of my experience until years later, when I came to learn of the doctrines of Providence. Oh! That’s what that was about. OK.
Again, though: My faith, my assurance is not resting on those initial events. I do not base my assurance on some whispered thoughts. No! That confidence has come from learning to know that God who called me. He has been so kind as to make it possible to know Him. He has set down this book we call the Bible describing Himself: Who He is, what He does, what He likes and dislikes. Is it an instruction guide to living? Yes, and far more. And in this book, as He has laid out His nature for us to see, and as He has set forth the details of His plan for salvation, one thing has become abundantly clear: God is God.
That is the foundation for my confidence. It is because God is God that His word is infallible. His word is infallible because He alone in all creation has the power, knowledge and wisdom to ensure that what He has said shall indeed come to pass. He who set the stars in the heavens, who hit the ‘Play’ button on the universe after having decreed the course of its development: He also set forth this plan of salvation. And over and over again, He makes it clear: “By My own right arm I shall do it.” “My own arm brought salvation to Me” (Isa 63:5). As I have already pointed out from John’s gospel: None can come except the Father calls, and who does come, I shall in no wise reject.
See, this is the thing: If God is not in charge of election and salvation, there is no assurance. It all falls back on my compliance, and the moment that happens, I am assured of one thing only: I am lost and without the slightest hope. But, it does not depend on me. It is all about Him. He chose. He saved. He redeemed. He purified and continues to purify. He has done it all. Yes, I do my best to work together with Him as He desires. I don’t suppose for a minute that I do near enough. But, I do as I am able. I know full well the sorrowful reality of Jesus’ words, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” (Mt 26:41). At the same time, the truth of Matthew Henry’s comment assures me: “To pretend to what we have not is hypocrisy; and to deny what we have is ingratitude.”
Let me close out this part of my comments with some further consideration of that statement, because it addresses matters beyond those of election. Start there, though. If we know our salvation secure, a gift firmly in our possession, it is indeed the grossest ingratitude to suggest that God’s gift is faulty and insufficient to our need. For all that, even if we don’t know that security, such a position demonstrates gross ingratitude, albeit that said ingratitude may well be coming from ignorance.
On the other side of the coin, the one that concerns Clarke so much, if we are not saved and yet go forth claiming we are, yes: That is the most deadly hypocrisy. To suppose a salvation one does not have is not just hypocrisy, it is suicide. It prevents one from seeking out the reality of salvation, and as Jan and I were discussing over dinner last night, this plays a significant role in explaining why evangelism seems so difficult in our region. Too many are churched in churches that are effectively synagogues of Satan. Too many have accepted the liberal, anything goes, so long as you believe in something form of Christianity that is espoused by many of the older denominations. Switch to the Catholic side, and you find too many who are convinced that their baptism as an infant, or their confirmation, or whichever ritual, was all it took. They did the one step program, and can now just get on with life.
It doesn’t work that way, but it is terribly difficult to get through to one with such a mindset. If you have one who supposes, “I am already saved”, it’s very difficult to convince them they are not. It’s offensive. There’s just no way around that. How dare you suggest my religion is invalid! How dare you question my spiritual beliefs or my spiritual condition! But, we must. Lives depend on it.
So: Pretend not to what you don’t have. This is not to say we oughtn’t put our best foot forward of a Sunday. Indeed, we ought to put our best foot forward every day. It’s not to say we who adhere to the True religion and the soundest doctrine have arrived at perfection. Far from it! We have been made that much more aware of our imperfection. Woe is me! But, thanks be to God for Christ Jesus! What I have no hope of obtaining, He has attained, and He has given it to me as a gift for my own possession.
Mr. Henry describes the opposite as ingratitude: Denying my salvation, even denying my certainty is indeed to denigrate God’s ability. It in effect seeks to make God less than God. He is imperfect. His work is not sufficient to the need. He may have decreed it, but I can thwart it. Who is the god in such thoughts? It’s not Him. But, I have to say that for those who know salvation, it would be a worse hypocrisy to insist on this non-assured status than for those who claim a salvation they never had. How hypocritical is it to claim to believe God and then to turn around and deny His own proclamations?
It’s like Peter all over again. You claim to know Jesus is the Son of the Living God and then turn around and in the very next breath claim He doesn’t know what He’s talking about. You claim you trust Him, but then run away at the first sign of trouble. You claim you are saved but you act as hopeless as the most benighted heathen. Spiritual psychosis: Cognitive Dissonance for Christians. That’s what it amounts to. The contradictions are so great, and yet we fail to see the impossibility of these two supposed truths co-existing.
There is every reason, then, for Peter to add to this declaration that his hearers are elect according to God’s foreknowledge. He is not just amplifying the same point. He is pointing them to the best evidence for that claim: The sanctifying work of the Spirit. We shall take this up in the next section.
To What Purpose Election? (05/19/14)
There is, it seems, a danger inherent in proclaiming the Gospel. The danger is that it shall be heard only in part, that the glorious reality of God’s sovereign election will lead to a life of license. But, the danger lies not with the message. The danger lies in the hearer, and that same propensity for continuing in sin will be applied to any message received. Just consider the number who, having been baptized into the church as infants, consider themselves clearly part of the church in spite of a lifestyle that marks them out as clearly outside. Does the fault lie with infant baptism? No. Those who apply that baptism and even pronounce covenantal privilege in the church based on that baptism in no wise mean to suggest that no further activity or effort is required on the part of the newly baptized infant.
The same truth holds with election. And the same false doctrines have been built around that truth. This is nothing new. We see Paul countering the same exact tendencies as he lays the doctrine out plainly in Romans. Shall we go on sinning, seeing it’s all in God’s hands anyway? By no means! Peter likewise cuts off that line of corrupt reasoning here. You were chosen in God’s foreknowledge, yes. But, you were chosen, also, by means of the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Further, you were chosen to a particular end: that you may obey Christ Jesus and be sprinkled with His blood.
Start with the Spirit’s part in this work. His is a sanctifying work, and note well that Peter is setting this out as a marker of election. Cause: Father’s choice. Means: Spirit’s sanctification. Here, then, is a critical point for us: If the Spirit has sanctified, there is no possibility that the sanctified life will show no evidence of His work. If He is working, there will be fruit from His working. That fruit will be evident, and we have a clear definition of what constitutes said fruit. It is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (Gal 5:22-23). These are the evidences of a life transformed. That is not to say that we shall see all of these things in perfect display, with no lapses. But, we should reasonably expect to see some of these in some degree at all times.
Now: Take this point to heart as well. The sanctifying work of the Spirit is of the Spirit. It is His work. It is nothing of which we can boast, for He is doing it. But, if He is not doing it, if we see no evidence of His work in us, we have no cause for supposing ourselves elect. Calvin insists that we see an inviolate connection here. “God does not sanctify any but those whom he has previously elected.” Indeed, just as one cannot separate election and calling, one cannot separate the righteousness of faith from newness of life – the impact of sanctification.
Clarke sees this, but then misapplies what he sees. “Promise and duty go hand in hand,” he writes. That sounds so right and reasonable, doesn’t it? It’s the sort of thing we would probably tell our kids. Sure, there’s a promise, but it’s conditional. You have a responsibility to uphold your end of the bargain if you expect me to uphold mine. But, that is exactly the problem with this line of thought. It leaves salvation as a conditional. He proceeds to insist that all is indeed freely given – it would be hard to deny this and still find even one foot in Scripture – but the gift, in his view depends in the end upon your obedience to the call.
That, however, leaves sanctification as our work, a matter of merit, and this it can never be. Wycliffe’s softens the connection a bit, but makes a similar statement that election and personal responsibility go hand in hand. I would not consider this an untruth. But, it misrepresents the point. The point is very clearly that the Spirit sanctifies; indeed, has already done so in the chosen. This is not, then, about our responsibility but about our experience. It’s about having a reason to believe ourselves elect. Let me set a quote from Barnes here, which I think sets the case very well. “A man has reason to think that he is one of the elect of God, just so far as he has evidence that he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit, and so far as he has holiness of heart and life, AND NO FURTHER.”
This is what we are looking at. Somebody amongst the several commentaries suggested that we are looking at the initial sanctification of renewal that comes about in the moment of our regeneration, that Peter is not discussing the ongoing work of sanctification. That’s as may be. I’m not sure it changes anything for me one way or the other. It feels like a hedge, reserving something that remains our responsibility. But, reserving something as our responsibility makes it our work rather than our response. It seems to me that whether we are discussing the instant work of regenerative sanctification or the ongoing, lifelong work of progressive sanctification, the fact remains that it is by the Spirit. Yes, we participate. Yes, we are being brought into obedience, and we could not call it obedience if it were not an act of our will. But, it is by the Spirit or it is an impossibility.
As I wrote my first time through this passage, “Our election comes through sanctification, and our sanctification comes by means of the Holy Spirit, or it never comes at all.” This is the thing that gives us hope of obeying Christ at all, let alone perfectly. It will involve ‘the daily exercise of holiness’ of which Matthew Henry writes. It will be seen in mortification of sins and in living to God. It will involve us using such means as God has ordained to that purpose. We will avail ourselves of the sanctifying Truth of His Word (Jn 17:17).
Coming, then, to the sprinkled blood of Christ, we should see not the once-for-all benefit we had in the moment of conversion, but the ongoing benefit of His sacrifice on our behalf. This is more to do with the incidental defilements of living in the world. It is to be associated with the foot washing at the Last Supper. You have been cleansed, but you’ll still need some touch up. The blood of Christ, then, is not sufficient only to cleanse us of past sins. It is powerful to cleanse us of today’s sins and tomorrow’s as well. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive and to cleanse (1Jn 1:9). This is a point that the JFB makes particularly clear. Atonement? Once-for-all. Cleansing? Daily. That daily cleansing is a privilege belonging to those who have already been justified, who are already in the light.
So, then, we have all three Persons of the Trinity present and working in both our election and our sanctification. Father chooses, Spirit sanctifies, Son atones and keeps clean. Here, I conclude with Matthew Henry that apart from the Spirit’s sanctification and Christ’s blood, there can be no true obedience. It is the Trinity in unity that works to achieve man’s salvation.
This brings us to the goal. What’s the point of it? Why are we chosen, sanctified, forgiven? It is so that we may obey Christ Jesus. Apart from this Truine work on our behalf, we have no hope of obeying Him. Apart from obeying Him we have no hope of heaven. We are dead men walking. But, in light of His work – His choice, His evident seal of sanctification, His redemptive blood applied on our behalf while we were yet His enemies! – we do have hope. We are alive. We have assurance that our election is not a misconception or a wishful self-delusion. It is our clear reality. To deny what we truly possess would be ingratitude. That obedience which is the goal of all this, as the JFB points out, both consists in and flows from faith. But, it is no blind faith. It is faith with solid evidence upon which to stand. That point will play a strong role in the letter as it unfolds.
Meanwhile, I would remind myself of the great risk that lurks within: That I might become too enamored of the trappings of church life to be holy. This risk lies hidden behind many disguises, being primarily an outworking of pride. But, it is part of the tension of Christian life. We become enamored of the reputation, the pride of knowing, the excitement of the worship experience. We get into our heads that it is all about God, and the sinfulness that is still ours convinces us that we can, ‘let go and let God’. We are happy to go about our lives as if nothing has changed. It becomes play-acting. And in that moment, we are right there with the Pharisees, and we can only expect to hear, “Woe to you, hypocrites!”
Call and duty do go hand in hand. But, it is a duty of love. It is call and response, not call and demand. It is not an effort to earn God’s love. It is the natural response to realizing that I already abide in His love. How quickly, though, I can lose sight of it. How quickly I can return to my old habits. But, this must not be. Holiness remains the goal, and I must join with those who have gone before me in striving for that goal. For nothing could please me more than to reach it, knowing it would please my Savior were I to do so. And, I know this: He shall see to it that I do indeed attain to the goal of holiness, for it is Christ living and working in me that brings it about, and He simply cannot fail.
Final Thoughts (05/19/14)
Continuing on this thought of the Truine work of salvation in us, I would set down what the JFB has noted on the subject: Father gives salvation by gratuitous election. Son earns our salvation through the shedding of His own blood. Spirit applies Son’s merits to the soul by the Gospel message. Notice where you are in all this: On the receiving end. Father does. Son does. Spirit does.
It is a precarious balance to set out this beautiful doctrine without promoting presumption and complacency. To that end, I would add that we cannot have full assurance of faith if we have become lazy and complacent towards our sins. That is not to say that every sin is evidence that our election was an illusion. Far from it! That’s the game the devil tries to play with us. You can’t be saved. Just look at yourself. But, if sin doesn’t phase us anymore? If sin remains our normal setting? Then, we have no foundation upon which to stand. Go back to what Barnes said, one more time. “A man has reason to think that he is one of the elect of God, just so far as he has evidence that he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit, and so far as he has holiness of heart and life, AND NO FURTHER.”
These things have been given that we may have confidence, but where they have not been given, have no confidence. Rather seek God while He may yet be found.
Finally, I would give brief notice to the greeting: Grace and peace be yours. It would be easy to pass this off as just standard apostolic hand-waving, no more significant than saying hello. But, it is apostolic and it is significant. One of the articles made note of the fact that this combined the typical greeting of the Greek and the Jew, but I don’t think that’s the point, merely an interesting artifact. Matthew Henry has this to say about the two terms. “Peace without grace is mere stupidity; but grace may be true where there is for a time no actual peace.” There is something to this, isn’t there? Everybody wants peace, and many think they have it. But, we cannot have peace apart from God, only illusions of peace, stupidity mistaking mortal peril for safety.
There can be no true peace apart from grace. The two are, I think, as inseparable as election and sanctification, as faith and obedience. That peace which flows from grace, though, may not look like what we would normally consider peace. It is not the guaranteed absence of all strife. Indeed, as I have often noted, we are promised the exact opposite in this life. But, peace is not primarily (or even secondarily) about this life. It’s about our relationship to God. There is enmity or there is peace. We are either at war with Him or at home with Him. But, we cannot be at home with Him except for His grace poured out, as Peter has set forth in these brief verses. He has made peace not only possible, but real. Grace and peace are yours if you are chosen according to His foreknowledge, sanctified by His Spirit, sprinkled with His blood. And if grace and peace are yours, they are yours in fullest measure. It is not some throw-away bit of triteness that Peter is offering here. In fact, contrary to the NASB, there is no ‘may’ about this. Yes, the ‘be multiplied’ is in the Optative Voice, making it a possibility rather than a declaration of certainty. But, I would note that one cannot hope to multiply what is not already there.
God, in His grace, will grant us peace in abundance, even in the midst of trial; I would say, especially in the midst of trial. “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful” (Jn 14:27). Whatever may come, you are Mine. Though you die, yet shall you live forever. This world is not your home, and these trials are not forever. I have gone to make a place for you, and I will come back to bring you home with Me. That is peace.
