Election, a study of 1 Peter chapter 1

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
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:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:1-2 ESV

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, ² who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance." 1 Peter 1:1-2 NIV

 

 

"This letter is from Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.

I am writing to God’s chosen people who are living as foreigners in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.² God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed him and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ.
May God give you more and more grace and peace." 1 Peter 1:1-2 NLT


From these samplings of English translations of 1 Peter 1:1-2 it would seem very clear that Peter believes that the Church has been elected by God. Peter is writing to the churches after the diaspora from Jerusalem. But does this mean all individual Christians are also elected? Well the Church is made up of individual Christians and so it could be argued the Church and Christians are interchangable terms. It would certainly seem odd that if God has elected the Church as the manifestation of His Kingdom here on earth that He would not also guarantee that the Christians who make up the body of Christ and through whom God now acts by the indwelling Holy Spirit, would not also be elected. What does the rest of 1 Peter 1 say?

"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation, ⁴ and we have a priceless inheritance—an inheritance that is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay. ⁵ And through your faith, God is protecting you by his power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see." 1 Peter 3-5 NLT

"For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. ¹⁹ It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God." 1 Peter 1:18-19 NLT


"For you have been born again, but not to a life that will quickly end. Your new life will last forever because it comes from the eternal, living word of God. ²⁴ As the Scriptures say,

“People are like grass;
    their beauty is like a flower in the field.
The grass withers and the flower fades.
²⁵     But the word of the Lord remains forever.”^[f]

And that word is the Good News that was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:23-25 NLT

 

From surveying the rest of the chapter, putting verses 1-2 into context Peter clearly teaches that salvation comes from God alone and that it is by grace we are born again. Peter mentions being born again twice, drawing attention and adding emphasis to the dichotomy between the believers old lives and their new Christian ones. Their old life died when their new life in Christ began. That is the reason why Peter calls them to live lives of holiness, because they are no longer of the world, living by its standards and under the bondage of sin. Christians belong to God and thus must reflect the image of their redeemer and saviour. Peter also clearly teaches that the new life we have as Christians is eternal and again explains this is because it comes not from ourselves but from God. Salvation is 100% God.

 

Are Christians elected and is their election secure? From 1 Peter 1 I would say that they are. Now there are many other scriptures and chapters we could look at which explore this subject. But I have chosen to keep this study specific to the chapter in question. What do we learn about the Christian life from 1 Peter 1?

 

1. Salvation comes from God by way of Jesus` atoning, substitutionary sacrifice
2. Christians are born again through faith, which comes from God (by His mercy)
3. Christians have been saved from their past lives of sin because God has paid the ransom (by His own Son, Jesus Christ`s blood)
4. Christians have an inheritance which is eternal and unchangable
5. Christians inherit eternal life, guaranteed by the Word of God

 

From this, I believe that election is unconditional in the respect that we do not and cannot earn our salvation. It is by grace alone. I also believe that true Christians (those that are born again) cannot lose their salvation or inheritance because it is guaranteed by the faithfulness of God. However, who constitutes a real Christian is a tricky question to answer as only God sees into the human heart and judges us accordingly. However, Peter here seems to suggest we will be able to tell those who are genuine believers by their obedience to God and in living holy lives, bearing the fruit of their salvation.

 

 

 

   

 

Steven Seagal Force of Execution Review

Steven Seagal`s recent films are all a much of a muchness. To say he is typecasted would be the understatement of a lifetime! "Force of Execution" is yet another straight to DVD/Blu-Ray b-movie which conforms, in the main, to the conventions Seagal`s films have become known for. It involves violence, criminals, drugs and `exotic dancers` (apparently it is compulsory for every gangster to either run or frequent `exotic dance` clubs). Steven Seagal`s characters have become slightly edgier over the last 6-8 years or so, possibly as life has made him more cynical. But by and large he plays the same archetypal character: a highly trained ex-government/black ops/cop who has a mysterious past and is the best in the world at what he does. To my knowledge, Force of Execution sees Seagal play for the first time a Gangster, called Mr Alexander.

I applaud Seagal for desiring (in his own limited way) to stretch himself and portray a character from the other side of the tracks; after all it is understandable that he might have developed a perverse curiosity into the criminal underworld, as he has spent the majority of his adult life as a deputy sheriff in New Orleans/Arizona dealing with real criminals on a regular basis. Nevertheless Seagal never truly seems comfortable in the role. The antagonist of the film, played by Ving Rhames and Mr Alexander`s counter-part Ice-Man, throws himself into the sordid and debauched world of the life of crime and comes across very naturally as the street thug and wannabe gangster set on overthrowing Mr Alexander`s criminal empire. Yet Seagal`s character is a gentleman gangster. The film opens with a supposed torture scene where Seagal`s right hand man Roman Hurst, played by Bren Foster, has a `snitch` tied up awaiting the wrath of Mr Alexander. Instead, Seagal commands for the man to be untied and throws a knife down at his feet telling the man to commit suicide to regain his honour (a form of seppuku, the ritualised suicide of disgraced Samurai in Feudal Japan). The man predictably has no intention of committing suicide and seizing his opportunity attacks Mr Alexander with the knife given to him, setting up the first Seagal action sequence of the film. Even more predictably, Seagal dispatches with the man using his martial arts prowess as is his trademark.

Throughout the film, Seagal doesn`t seem to do one truly evil thing. Drugs are a big part of the criminal underworld that Ice-Man is hellbent on taking over, threatening and using violent means of intimidation to force the local Latino gangsters to give him a cut of their profits, but Mr Alexander never dirties his hands with drugs in the film personally. Rather Seagal plays a disillusioned Gangster who admits through the course of the film that he wants to retire from his life of crime and leave it all behind him, even confessing in the last scene that he regrets many of the things he`s done. Seagal is never truly at home in that world and his reluctance and reticence to truly be the villain causes him to play a very grey character indeed. Considering a lot of Seagal`s films portray characters in very black and white terms. This film struggles to find its identity.

Arguably the main character in the film, and certainly the unsung hero, is Bren Foster`s henchman Roman Hurst. Foster, a martial artist himself, infiltrates a prison where Mr Alexander has ordered a hit on a prisoner. Hurst kills the wrong man after being deceived by Ice-Man and is therefore punished and exiled by Mr Alexander (who once again shows mercy in refusing to have him killed). Hurst`s hands are broken and he is left crippled. However, as the film progresses, Hurst finds himself at the heart of the action once again and slowly, regaining his strength and use of his hands, joins the war with Mr Alexander against Ice-Man. In fact, Seagal is conspicuous by his absence for large parts of the film. I`m not sure whether it is his age, or time constraints on filming due to his many other side projects but Seagal certainly isn`t at the centre of every scene and it is hard to argue he is the main character.

Foster`s character juxtaposes Seagal`s with his own martial arts style. Foster is a Taekwondo champion and his fight scenes are far more dynamic compared and contrasted to the efficient and brutal style Seagal is known for with his Aikido background. This definitely adds a much needed layer to the film that is typically one dimensional.

But perhaps the most odd and disappointing thing about the film is the surprise inclusion into the cast of former UFC heavyweight champion Frank Mir. Mir plays one of Seagal`s henchmen but is given no speaking parts and no fight scenes of his own, resulting it what is little more than him being a glorified extra, rather than a real cameo performance. You would think with Mir being a professional and extremely talented mixed martial artist that he would have been given at least one fight scene, but instead Mir just stands there in his scenes looking rather out of place and not really sure what he is meant to be doing. If Mir had serious intentions of transitioning into acting after his MMA career was over, you would have thought a Steven Seagal film the perfect environment to cut his teeth. Sadly, this is not the case.


Overall this film is one of Seagal`s weakest to date, which considering the rate of decline in his film projects over the last decade or so is really saying something! The problem the film has is the fact that the characters are not well defined or written, Seagal reverts to type and ends up playing more of a black ops guy than a Gangster. Ice-Man for all his indulgance in vice and depravity as a gangster, is not the kind of physical threat to Seagal that the antagonist needs to be in a martial arts film. Foster  is really the star of the film but is not really given the credit he deserves at the resolution of the film and in general the film`s scope and budget seem very small.

There has been a very distinct transition in Seagal`s career from hollywood action hero to TV star. Seagal`s films now just go straight to DVD/Blu-Ray and he has made several TV programs including his reality show Lawman. For me, Seagal should give up the b-movies and focus on his TV projects. His Lawman show is one of the most entertaining things he has created in years, giving fans a glimpse into the real Steven Seagal. Seagal is a talented man and definitely has the kind of interesting personality, TV is made for. His True Justice series is also a feather in his cap. The series sees him playing the same character, Elijah Kane, and allows him to actually explore a character and their backstory, fleshing out his character, which have largely been one dimensional in his film projects. Not to mention the fact that the quality of True Justice is on a par, if not better than some of his more recent films. I respect Seagal for continuing to do what he loves, but the gulf in quality between his early films of the late 80s through to the late 90s and his recent films of the noughties up to the present day is now so wide that they are really incomparible. Long gone are the days when Seagal`s films actually made important and relevant statements about modern society such as Above the Law and On Deadly Ground. Also gone are the days when it was realistic (within film land) that Seagal was a one man army such as in his highly enjoyable and entertaining Under Seige films.

Those with ears let them hear

When it comes to the matter of origins, the evolution/creation debate is fraught with emotions. The evolutionary paradigm is the monolith of our age that stands against Christian doctrine. To borrow a biblical analogy, creationism is most definitely the David to evolution`s Goliath. There are those both within and outside of the Church that see no contradiction between religion and science, permitting first that Genesis 1-11 is not accepted as historical. Some try to resolve the issue by believing God used evolution as His means of creating humanity (Theistic Evolutionists), despite the fact that this was not Darwin`s theory and indeed is at odds with the character of God found in the Bible. There are those that choose to believe religion and science operate in two mutually exclusive and separate spheres - one of physics the other of metaphysics. Yet this dichotomy is hard to maintain when ethics and morality are increasingly being influenced by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and indeed would require allegorising almost all of the Bible that speaks of God`s interaction with Israel and His creation. All attempts to blur the edges between the scientific paradigm of methodological naturalism and the doctrines of the Bible are unsatisfactory for one reason or another, either scientifically or theologically.

The debate over our origins is an ideological battleground. It is fiercely contested. The controversy rages on and both sides shoot to kill. I have recently had experience of this first hand. I have been discussing the origins issue on an internet forum, from which I have a few reflections I would like to share:

I now believe it is a mistake to engage in this debate with people who are not genuinely open to the Bible. Creationism (the belief that God created in six literal days as recorded in Genesis 1), is instantly dismissed in the minds of evolutionists precisely because its source of authority is the Bible. The secularisation of western society is such that any appeal to the Bible as a source of authority in matters historical or scientific are rejected as incredulous. I also believe it is a mistake to engage in this debate with people who are not genuinely open to the belief in the sovereignty of God. It is axiomatic that if there is no God then there is no creator, no designer and no truth to the Bible. Straw Man arguments abound undermining creation research because of these presuppositions.

Having a relationship with the person is essential to the nature of this debate. Debating with anonymous strangers over the internet is not a good idea. You open yourself up to being a target and people are far more careless with their words and with offending you or your feelings. I suspect that if you had a relationship with a person before hand, then the conversation would take on a different tone and feel. There would be more respect, even if they disagreed with you and people would be more careful in how they responded and replied to you.

Another important reflection is that without the Holy Spirit working in a person`s heart the arguments will fall on deaf ears. Alternative scientific models are rejected as "unscientific" and because all scientific research is now done through the lense of evolution all the evidence seems to point to evolution in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. The paradigm is not questioned and when evidence is used as counter-arguments against evolution then it is dismissed as merely proving the theory incomplete rather than false. People`s commitment to evolution is resolute.

What does this mean for those of us who hold to a literal, historical understanding of Genesis 1-11? It means that this debate is largely fruitless when the circumstances are wrong. While it is important that we educate ourselves, it is not a battle we have much chance of winning on purely academic grounds. Evolution is the establishment. Rather, we must continually pray and seek opportunities to speak to the truth in love to those who God has brought into our path but only when the time is right. We must pray for discernment as to when to approach the subject and what to say. We must be wise not to throw our pearls to pigs, and in our conversations and relationships with others we must be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16).

In hindsight I have made mistakes in the way I approached this subject. I have learnt from them and I don`t intend on making those mistakes again. While I am not entirely jaded, I believe I am more discerning. From my experiences and insights I hope I can help other Christians who struggle with this same issue.