Does Peter present a problem for corporate election view?

[Jeff]

I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian, I hold to the corporate election view thanks for the wonderful teaching of Steve Gregg on this subject. Usually when I discuss this with Calvinists, I point out how when Paul talks about election and being chosen/predestined it's always "in Christ" and "we" not "I". However, I ran across a couple of verses last night which I knew about, but never considered in connection with the corporate election view:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 1:2)

At first glance, this seems to argue against the corporate election view. It sounds as if Peter himself is saying that he has been individually elected. It seems that you would either have to take an Arminian view - Peter was individually elected based on God's foreknowledge of his future faith - or a Calvinist view - Peter was individually elected based simply on the fact that God foreknew him. Could it be interpreted that Peter is elect "in agreement of" God's foreknowledge as opposed to "because of" God's foreknowledge? That interpretation would seem to still possibly fit the corporate view model. I would love to get Steve's input on this, but I would also like to see what others think about it. Thanks!

[TK]

couldnt Peter be saying that he is elect because he is part of the corporate elect? i.e., " Peter...elect [as a member of the corporate elect] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

TK

[Jeff]

I would think so, but I just wanted to make sure that the "according to the foreknowledge" part didn't present a challenge to that.

[Apollos]

You don't need to worry about this verse - the 'elect' here (a word which actually only occurs in v. 1 and is being supplied for v. 2 to complete the sense) is dative plural - it's referring to Peter's audience, not to Peter himself.

[steve]

the 'elect' here (a word which actually only occurs in v. 1 and is being supplied for v. 2 to complete the sense) is dative plural - it's referring to Peter's audience, not to Peter himself

.

This is what I have always thought myself, though I had not checked it in the Greek, and am away from home (and my books) so that I could not check it just now. I have never had the impression that Peter was speaking here about his own election.

[Jeff]

Somehow I missed the possibility of this referrring to his audience and not himself. Now I feel silly. Thanks everyone for the insight!

[steve]

No need to feel silly. In English it could be read either way.

[Jeff]

Steve, have you ever considered writing a book based on your teachings on Calvinism? It seems like for the most part Calvinism has all the heavy-hitting "intellectuals" in this debate and you have about the best teachings on this subject from the non-Calvinist perspective that I know of!

[Apollos]

I agree there. When I come across a difficult verse I often think "I remember Steve dealing with this" but I don't have time to go through the messages to find it. I usually go to the Evangelical Arminian website to try to see what they say about the verse. It would be good to have a written resource.

[brody196]

If I am not mistaken, Calvinism is one of Steve's least favorite subjects to teach on. Feel free to correct me on this one Steve...