Corporate and Individual Election

Corporate election is the idea that election is primarily about a group and secondarily about individuals. It’s most clearly seen in the OT concept of Israel and the NT concept of the church. Philip Limborch addressed the objection that corporate election rules out individual election:

In the first place it is objected that the predestination we have defined, is not that of persons, but of faith; since faith is thereby predestined as a condition of salvation. Answer. He who elected faith as a condition to be performed by men if they would attain eternal life, has truly elected men under that condition, and in His decree has an immediate regard to people. Therefore these two things, viz., the person and his qualification, are never to be separated, but are always to be joined together. (Philip Limborch, A Complete System or Body of Divinity, both Practical and Speculative. P 344-345)

Scripture paints a manifold view of election:

  1. God chooses Christ as the foundation of salvation (1 Peter 1:20)
  2. God chooses faith as the instrument of salvation (Romans 4:16)
  3. God chooses to save believers (1 Corinthians 1:21, John 3:16)
  4. God chooses the defined group (i.e. the list of individuals) from eternity through foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2, Romans 8:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:13) and in time as individuals enter the covenant community (Romans 10:5-13, 11:17-24)

The objection Limborch answers above is essentially that #3 is indistinct from #2 and #4. The idea is that either the list of people is defined (via foreknowledge) and so #3 is really #4,or God is only choosing a condition (i.e. faith, not works) and not a group.

Admittedly, the difference between choosing to save through faith and choosing to save believers is slight (i.e. #3 vs #4). The former is a choice of faith itself and latter is whoever has faith. The difference between #3 and #4 is shaper. “Whosoever believes” in John 3:16 isn’t a statement about God’s foreknowledge of the list of people through history who will believe, but rather a statement that regardless of who the person is, if they believe they fall into this category.

One of the best recent accounts of the relation between corporate election and the individual is Brian Abasciano’s Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner. (link)

Comments

Trevor Almy said…
I am afraid you are giving a logical order to God's decree that is not Scripturally based. Ephesians 1 makes it clear that God chose us not because we were holy and blameless but so that we would be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:3). Romans 9 emphatically teaches that God chose Jacob over Esau before either had been born or done anything good or evil (Rom. 9:11). The analogy Paul uses is that of the Potter and the clay (Rom. 9:21). Just as the Potter has the right to make one vessel for honor and one vessel for dishonor, so God has the right to elect some and pass over others.

For argument's sake, let's assume conditional election is true. God looks down the corridors of time and chooses those who exercise faith and repentance. Now, does that view of election make any sense in light of the objector's comments in Romans 9:19? Would the objector have grounds for such a cry of injustice if election is contigent upon faith?

Conditional election may be philosophically defensible but it will never stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous exegesis! The crux of the issue remains this: is God free and sovereign to have mercy on whom he will and harden whom he will (Rom. 9:16-18).

Please feel free to examine some of my articles at www.stillreformed.blogspot.com!
November 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Trevor,

Thanks for commenting. Please keep in mind that Paul's objector is not an Arminian, but rather a Jew. Here's a link to my thoughts on Romans 9:

Romans 9

Thanks for the link to your site. I will check it out.

As for Ephesians 1, I agree we are not chosen because we were holy, but that we would be holy. But I also note that faith does not save. God saves the believer. It's by His choice believers are made holy.

God be with you,
Dan
November 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Anonymous said…
Dan,

Have you read "God's Strategy in Human History"? I just got the updated version and read the chapter on election. It is very good and takes the corporate view (which I am now fully convinced is the correct view). Very thorough and strong on exegesis. The rest of the book looks excellent as well but I have not yet read through it. If you don't have it I highly recommend it.

God Bless,
Ben
November 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Ben,

Thanks for the suggestion. I think Eric recommends that book as well. Maybe I will drop Santa some hints. :-)

God be with you,
Dan
November 26, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more