Election - In Christ, or In us?

The nature of election has long been one of the most hotly debated topics in evangelical theology. The question lies at the heart of the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism, a debate which commands so much interest and attention because it ultimately has to do with the character of God. But beyond the inherent appeal the disagreement between Arminianism and Calvinism holds for those with a high view of Scripture, the debate has been raging with a heightened intensity in recent years with no sign of abating due to factors such as (1) the current resurgence of Calvinism in evangelicalism (which, in its popular form, must be considered more Arminian than Calvinist overall),1 (2) the popularity of the internet, where on the one hand multitudes of laymen now flock to gain theological information, and on the other hand Calvinists have been quite prolific, and (3) the advent of influential outlooks such as Open Theism and the New Perspective on Paul, the former directly opposed to Calvinism and the latter providing various insights that can be effectively pressed into service by Arminians (whether or not they agree with the view in general) to support their system.

Traditionally, both Calvinism and Arminianism have conceived of election unto salvation as individual. That is, each individual is elected individually to belong to God. On this view, election of the body of God’s people refers to the election of the group as a consequence of the discrete election of each individual who is chosen and their gathering into a group of people sharing a common experience of individual election. The main difference between the two views has been that Calvinists view election as unconditional and Arminians view it as conditional on divine foreknowledge of human faith. But there is another view of election which ultimately supports Arminian theology and has come to command a great deal of scholarly support—the view of corporate election. Indeed, in a text like Romans 9, which is a locus classicus for the doctrine of election, corporate election of one sort or another has become the most dominant type of election perceived by interpreters.2 Its popularity has probably been due largely to the scholarly community’s greatly increased sensitivity to the signal importance of the Jewish matrix of early Christianity and the profound indebtedness to the Old Testament on the part of the New Testament authors.

But despite its growing popularity, the doctrine has been criticized by some advocates of individual election, particularly Calvinists, whose position it directly contradicts.3 However, these criticisms are misguided, largely founded upon misunderstanding of the biblical concept of corporate election.4 Once these misconceptions are cleared away, it should be seen that corporate election is indeed the most biblical view of election, vindicating the Arminian approach to the doctrine, even if untraditionally. Therefore, this article will first briefly review the proper understanding of corporate election, and then address various misconceptions and criticisms of it.

The discussion of corporate election has often been thrown off course by pitting corporate and individual election against one another. To some extent, this is unavoidable because there is obviously some difference between the concepts, and the type of election with which one begins leads to vastly different positions concerning the overall nature of election. But each type of election logically entails some type of the other. So the question actually boils down to which type of election is primary (see below). It is convenient for the purpose of assessing the primary orientation of election to speak in terms of corporate vs. individual. But it must be remembered that it is primary orientations that are to be pitted against one another and not exclusion of individuals vs.exclusion of the group. To represent the issue more accurately, I submit that it would be best to speak of primarily corporate election vs. individualistic (as opposed to merely individual) election, though it would be too burdensome always to qualify corporate election in this way.

Most simply, corporate election refers to the choice of a group, which entails the choice of its individual members by virtue of their membership in the group. Thus, individuals are not elected as individuals directly, but secondarily as members of the elect group. Nevertheless, corporate election necessarily entails a type of individual election because of the inextricable connection between any group and the individuals who belong to it.6 Individuals are elect as a consequence of their membership in the group.

Individualistic election, on the other hand, refers to the direct choice of individuals as autonomous entities, which entails the choice of the group (if one is involved) by virtue of the elect status of the individuals who make up the group. Thus, the group is not elected directly as a group, but secondarily as a collection of individually chosen persons. In other words, the group is chosen as a consequence of the fact that each individual in the group was individually chosen. If there were to be any prominence granted to the group over individuals in such a scheme, then the furthest this view could go would be to orient individual election toward the group by viewing individual election as the discrete choice of an individual to belong to the group of those who are also individually elected to join the group. Hence, the real question regarding the election of God’s covenant people is, which election is primary, that of the group or that of the individual? Both views are logically coherent,7 and concrete examples can be given of each from everyday life.

II.2. Biblical Election unto Salvation So far in this section we have been talking about the general concept of election, and not specifically the election of God’s covenant people, which in the New Covenant entails election unto eternal salvation. When we turn to the Bible on the matter of the election of God’s people, it becomes clear that corporate election predominates. Indeed, I would argue that it is the only type of election of God’s people to be his people in the Bible.

But the Bible’s doctrine of corporate election unto salvation is even more nuanced than simply saying that the group is elected primarily and the individual secondarily. More precisely, it refers to the election of a group as a consequence of the choice of an individual who represents the group, the corporate head and representative. That is, the group is elected as a consequence of its identification with this corporate representative.

The same may be said of individuals. They are chosen as a consequence of their identification with the people, and more fundamentally, with the individual corporate head. Thus,

God chose the people of Israel in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel (Deut 4:37; 7:6-8).8 That is, by choosing Jacob/Israel, the corporate/covenant representative, God also chose his descendants as his covenant people. It is a matter of Old Testament covenant theology. The covenant representative on the one hand and the people/nation of Israel on the other hand are the focus of the divine covenantal election, and individuals are elect only as members of the elect people. Moreover, in principle, foreign individuals who were not originally members of the elect people could join the chosen people and become part of the elect, demonstrating again that the locus of election was the covenant community and that individuals found their election through membership in the elect people.9

This notion of election is rooted in the Old Testament concept of corporate solidarity or representation, which views the individual as representing the community and identified with it and vice versa.10 “The concept is especially evident in the case of kings and patriarchs, who are seen to represent their people and sum them up in themselves, especially in the context of covenant.”11

We have already noted that God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. More specifically, God chose Abraham and his descendants, but limited his election of Abraham’s descendants to only some of them by his choice of Isaac as the head of the covenant through whom Abraham’s covenant descendants were to be reckoned. He then limited his election of the covenant descendants even further by his choice of Jacob as the head of the covenant. At the same time, and as already pointed out above, people not naturally related to Jacob and so not part of the elect people could join the chosen people, becoming part of the elect. On the other hand, individual members of the elect people could be cut off from the covenant people due to violation of the covenant, rendering them non-elect.

Finally, the Apostle Paul would argue, God limited his election even further to Christ as the head of the New Covenant (Gal. 3–4; see especially 3:16; cf. Rom. 3–4; 8), which is the fulfillment of the Old. Paradoxically, this also widened the election of God’s people because all who are in Christ by faith are chosen by virtue of their identification with Christ the corporate covenantal head, opening covenant membership to Gentiles as Gentiles. Just as God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Jacob/Israel, the Church was chosen in Christ (as Eph. 1:4 puts it). And as Ephesians 2 makes clear, Gentiles who believe in Christ are in him made to be part of the commonwealth of Israel, fellow citizens with the saints, members of God’s household, and possessors of the covenants of promise (2:11-22; note especially vv. 12, 19). Indeed, any Jews who did not believe in Jesus were cut off from the elect people, and any believing Gentiles who stop believing will likewise be cut off, while anyone who comes to faith, whether Jew or Gentile, willbe incorporated into God’s people (Rom. 11:17-24).

In the New Covenant, God’s people are chosen corporately as a consequence of their union with Christ, which is effected by faith.12 While this is not quite the traditional Arminian position, it fully supports Arminian theology because it is a conditional election. Most directly, such election is conditioned on being in Christ. But then being in Christ is itself conditioned on faith, meaning that the divine election of God’s people and the election of individuals for salvation is ultimately conditional on faith in Christ.

The full article can be found at the link in a pdf file, over 50 pages. I think Calvin missed the boat on what election meant, just as he gave too little credit to the grace with which God treats all people. As a result, his views on election cannot be supported by scripture.

***I think Calvin missed the boat on what election meant, just as he gave too little credit to the grace with which God treats all people. As a result, his views on election cannot be supported by scripture. ***

That is what I consider funny.

Got it. And will study it and get back to you if necessary. Thanks for the link.

Where the Chosen People - Israel - chosen as individuals, or corporately in Israel?

When Paul wrote, “10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”, was he writing about individuals, or tribes? Remember, the quote he gives is from Malachi - perhaps 1500 years after Jacob and Esau lived.

Is Romans 9-11 about individuals, or Israel corporately?

Where the Chosen People - Israel - chosen as individuals, or corporately in Israel?

Having read both viewpoints, Dr. Eckleburg's and Mr. Rogers, I don't think I'd choose one over the other. There are points made in each that would get converts, but not me. To me they are equal - God works individually and corporately: He can choose the group or the individual as He wants. After all, He is the "potter" and we are but "clay" in His hands. Who are "we" to tell Him how He should act?

Is Romans 9-11 about individuals, or Israel corporately?

What God decided He does. Romans tells us that God had planned to choose one over the other, beforehand - and accomplished what He said would happen. I think it's just that simple, and go back to what I said in my response in the first paragraph I wrote herein.

Could anyone tell me where I'm wrong here? And point out why? (PS: I'm not infallible, and make plenty of mistakes at times.)

What God decided He does. Romans tells us that God had planned to choose one over the other, beforehand - and accomplished what He said would happen.

Amen.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

"What God decided He does. Romans tells us that God had planned to choose one over the other, beforehand - and accomplished what He said would happen."

Amen.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

I have no idea what your verse quote has to do with what was said in what you quoted from me.

Isa 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

This quote of Isaiah mentions that God declares the end from the beginning, and it refers to "the things that are not yet done...." Surely you don't think that refers to "unconditional election" of individuals, do you? FYI, I don't.

God predestines the redeemed and unredeemed - one to an immortal life with Him, the other to a second death in the lake of fire: so, yes, I believe in a doctrine of "predestination". No more, no less.

Then maybe you should reread 1 Corinthians 4:7.

I had said, "What God decided He does. Romans tells us that God had planned to choose one over the other, beforehand - and accomplished what He said would happen." You replied with the above verse from Corinthians - which didn't make any sense. Now you tell me to re-read it! Why? It still doesn't make sense after I re-read it again and in context! It sure doesn't apply to what I said. I think maybe you ought to re-read it IN CONTEXT starting in I Cor. 3:1 all the way through chapter 4! Remember, chapter 4 is in regard to chapter 3, and starts out by saying "So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God."

What's your take on I Cor. 3:1-4:21? I'm waiting with baited breath to see how you look at that.

Whew!!!! I thought I lost my marbles. And that is not very difficult to do. :O)

Isa 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" This quote of Isaiah mentions that God declares the end from the beginning, and it refers to "the things that are not yet done...."

I don't have a problem with your interpretation. Of course not everything is done yet. Christ has not return. People are being saved. God is working out His plan.

However, I would suggest that God has a plan, it is a perfect plan and that He is enacting that plan right now. That plan, being perfect, will not be altered because it is perfect. Every blade of grass will bend just as God has planned it. Every puff of cloud will move across the sky. Everyone who God wants to be saved will find salvation. And at the end of this planet, judgment will be rendered.

So to interpret Isaiah 46:10, God will do His pleasure. He is very clear about this in the surrounding verses. But to assume that God's plan can be altered or changed is to suggest that God did not create a perfect plan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.