On Corporate Election

John Piper provides a detailed, exegetical treatise in his book, The Justification of God, which thoroughly vitiates the claim of corporate election in lieu of individual election. He writes:

It is a remarkable and telling phenomenon that those who find no individual predestination to eternal life in Rom 9:6-13 cannot successfully explain the thread of Paul’s argument as it begins in Rom 9:1-5 and continues through the chapter. One looks in vain, for example, among these commentators for a cogent statement of how the corporate election of two peoples (Isreal and Edom) in Rom 9:12,13 fits together in Paul’s argument with the statement, “Not all those from Israel are Israel” (9:6b). One also looks in vain for an explanation of how the pressing problem of eternally condemned Israelites in Rom 9:3 is ameliorated by Rom 9:6-13 if these verses refer “not to salvation but to position and historical task.” I have found the impression unavoidable that doctrinal inclinations have severely limited exegetical effort and insight—not so much because the answers of these exegetes are not my own, but because of the crucial exegetical questions that simply are not posed by them...[1]​

Not only are these “crucial exegetical questions” overlooked, but the proponents of corporate election fail to recognize the overlapping Biblical relationship, especially in the Old Testament, between individual identity of a progenitor and corporate identity of the progeny. At a profound level, the Bible portrays the individual as the nation of his progeny, and the nation as the progenitor—hence, the naming of the nation after the progenitor. Even mankind is named after our progenitor, since adam is Hebrew for mankind. Biblically, there is a strong sense that what the progenitor does, especially toward God, the not-yet-existent descendants do while still in his loins. This comes out in important ways, such as in Rom. 5:12. And when God blessed Abraham, he did so by promising blessings to his descendants. Abraham understood this as a blessing to him as much as to them, even though he would not live to see it.

Just as Abraham’s favor with God brought God’s favor with His descendants, there is no way to completely separate the corporate from the individual in the case of Rom. 9 with Esau and Jacob. If God chose to love Jacob’s descendants, it was because God chose to love Jacob. If God chose to not give His corporate favor to Esau’s descendants, then it was because God did not give His personal favor to Esau.

However, Dr. Piper sees a different angle as “the decisive flaw” in the corporate election view:

…Its decisive flaw is its failure to ask how the flow of Paul’s argument from 9:1-5 on through the chapter affects the application of the principle Paul has established in Rom 9:6b-13. The principle established is that God’s promised blessings are never enjoyed on the basis of what a person is by birth or by works, but only on the basis of God’s sovereign, free predestination (Rom 9:11,12). The ultimate decision of who will experience God’s grace or mercy is never based on a person’s “willing or running” (Rom 9:16). We may grant for the sake of argument, that in the demonstration of this principle of God’s freedom in election Paul uses Old Testament texts that do not relate explicitly to eternal salvation. What cannot be granted without further argumentation is that Paul intends for this principle of God’s predestining freedom to be limited to God’s choice of persons or nations for historical roles. Paul establishes from Old Testament texts that God chooses the beneficiaries of his promised blessing apart from all human distinctives. But it is an unwarranted leap to infer against the context of Rom 9 that this principle applies when the promised blessing at stake is “theocratic blessing” or a “historical role” but does not apply when the promised blessing is personal, eternal salvation (as Paul views it in Rom 4:13; Gal 3:14,16)...[2]​

This is a solid critique. Since Paul established that “God’s promised blessings are never enjoyed on the basis of what a person is by birth or by works, but only on the basis of God’s sovereign, free predestination,” then it is left to the proponents of “corporate election” to justify that this principle is suspended in the case of personal salvation.

Robert Culver points out another severe problem:

…Some Arminians and Wesleyans say divine election relates not to individuals but to national preference, to Israel per se as represented by ‘Jacob I loved’, etc., in Romans 9:6-13. This was developed at length by Wesley’s great orthodox systematizer, Richard Watson. I judge their lengthy arguments all crash on Paul’s plain statements in Romans 9 that 1) the election stands not of works but of God who calls (v. 11) — not applicable to a nation per se and 2) that (v. 16 KJV, cf. ESV margin) election ‘is not of him [a person, emphasis added] that willeth, nor of him [a person] that runneth’. The people of a nation usually have not one will (or opinion) but many; nor do they expend effort in ‘running’. National will is never one but of several opinions or wills nor the effort of ‘running’ (Gr. trecho. fig. ‘exert oneself to the limits of one’s powers in an attempt to go forward, to strive to advance’ Romans 1:16). The emphasis is entirely upon the effort that a person makes.[3]​

While it is plausible that the persons of Jacob and Esau could be used to refer to the nations that descended from them, it is not plausible that Paul establishes this principle in terms that are exclusively individual and not corporate. Rom. 9:13-16 ESV:

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Immediately following the related fact that God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” Paul anticipates the objection to that election, “Is there injustice on God’s part?” While it could conceivably be an objection to the corporate choice of Israel over Edom, Paul’s rebuttal of that objection can apply only to individuals: “By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’… So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” The only recourse available to the proponents of the “corporate” view would be to acknowledge that such corporate election in this case resulted in God having mercy on all of Israel (and saving them) and hardening all of Edom (and damning them).

Considering how problematic the view is, those who hold to corporate election should reconsider.

For more, see "Beyond Traditionalism: Reclaiming Southern Baptist Soteriology."
_____________________________________
[1] John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), p. 58.
[2] Ibid., p. 64.
[3] Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology (Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2005), pp, 680-681.

 

If the proponents of corporate election would only go as far as saying, as you did, that God will redeem all those who are in Christ, and that all who believe will be put in Christ, that would be good and true. But, like Dr. Hankins (whom you quote in your signature), they must offer a Scriptural argument as to why the pertinent texts understood by their opponents as supporting unconditional election should actually be understood differently. It is in this attempt that the OP defeats them.

God will surely save those who are in Christ. But the real question is in how one comes to faith. Dr. Hankins states, [“Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: Toward a Baptist Soteriology”, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, (Spring 2011, Vol. 8, No. 1), p. 94]:

The story of God’s relationship with mankind is fraught with frustration, sadness, and wrath on God’s part, not because humans are incapable of a faith response, but because they are capable of it, yet reject God’s offer of covenant relationship anyway. To be sure, they are not capable of responding in faith without God’s special revelation of Himself through Christ and His Spirit’s drawing. Any morally responsible person, however, who encounters the gospel in the power of the Spirit (even though he has a will so damaged by sin that he is incapable of having a relationship with God without the gospel) is able to respond to that “well-meant offer.”​

In this paragraph, Dr. Hankins comes close to the truth, but not close enough. It is true that humans are capable of “a faith response,” and “yet reject God’s offer of covenant relationship anyway.” But this applies to all men equally, and not to only the unwise, imprudent, rebels. We are all unwise, imprudent rebels, rejecting God and His offer until He does a work of preparation in our lives and hearts to successfully bring us to repentant faith. Telling us that men are “able to respond to that ‘well-meant offer'” only brings us back to the original dilemma: “The story of God’s relationship with mankind is fraught with frustration, sadness, and wrath on God’s part, not because humans are incapable of a faith response, but because they are capable of it, yet reject God’s offer of covenant relationship anyway.” Of course, Baptist centrists (such as I) would agree that all men are capable — but the problem remains that they will not come even if capable, unless God overcomes their resistance by fully persuading them. Unless God has so drawn the sinner as to fully persuade him, he will with utter certainty exercise his “ability to choose between two options” by choosing to reject God. In fact, this he does daily.

In the corporate election scheme, every man decides his own destiny. However, the unspoken problem in that idea is that, in actuality, the destinies of men would be left to a virtual form of random chance and circumstance. The result of denying that God is in control of events is to put the control of events into the combined but independent wills of innumerable mankind — billions of independent wills bearing on the events of every individual (not to mention the practical randomness of natural factors, such as weather, earthquakes, etc.). With such a myriad of uncontrolled factors, random chance is the virtual result, and we are chained by each other’s freedom. If all men are “free” to determine their own destiny, then no man is really free.

When the free wills of billions of people interact and collide, chance circumstance will decide what opportunities and influences come your way, as it all depends upon the myriad of decisions of others, both present and past. Men may appear to be masters of their own destinies, but they are no more free in the decision than they are under Calvinism. Disparities of influence and opportunity are selective by nature; so that, either these disparities are purposely controlled by God or random chance is the result.

Falling back to the claim of minimal adequacy of universal revelation (Rom. 1:18-20) only shows how God wants to leave all men without excuse, and does not at all defend the claim that God wants all men to be saved. How is God not being unconditionally selective when He knows exactly how much influence would be needed to successfully convert any particular man, and yet He only brings about (or permits) that much influence in some men’s lives and not others? Either God is using these disparities of influence as a means to select some and not others, or the eternal destinies of men are being left to random chance.

God’s actions and the actions of men together form an infinitely complex interaction. Men’s actions are changed by God’s actions, and God’s actions are changed by men’s actions. It’s like the game of “pick-up sticks.” If you randomly pile a hundred sticks on the table, with half of them representing God and the other half men, then you get the idea. You can’t move one without moving others. One change affects many others. God has worked out every infinitely complex interaction between what men will do and what God will do (and how men will react and how God will react) down to the last infinite detail. Since God is unavoidably in the mix, then the question of what any particular man would do apart from God’s influence is irrelevant, since God’s influence is unavoidable. There is no way to compare different men as to which will believe and which will reject as a difference merely between the men. Rather, since God’s interactions and influence have affected all men to some infinitely variable degree, then the variable is not merely the men but the extent of God’s influence. If the difference in God’s own influences are making the difference between Jim and John, then it ends up being God who has made the real difference.

The only real alternative that is both Biblical and reasonable is that God is really in control. Men do have free will, and that was orchestrated into God’s plan. But every end result is predetermined by that plan.

 

It’s possible I’ve misunderstood the position on that point. I’ll have to look into it further. But I would never be so offensive as to impugn your intentions as if I could read your mind. Your quick exit seems an easy route to take, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Eric Hankins, in his JBTM article, "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: Toward a Baptist Soteriology," said: "We deny that people's eternal destinies have been fixed without respect to a free-response of repentance and faith." He is clearly against divine determinism, which he spends much time criticizing. In divine determinism, God determines every man's destiny. In any system in which a man's destiny depends on his [libertarian] free-will response of repentance and faith, the man who chooses faith and repentance has chosen heaven as his destiny. Maybe you and Hankins don't agree, but I can't be faulted for taking his view as the norm for that side, since he's been the spokesman for it in the SBC. Or, maybe I have completely misunderstood. Can you enlighten me as to where the error is? Thanks!

 

Revmitchell,

I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position. If I've done that, it was unintentional and I apologize. However, I must honestly say that I still do not think that I have. Here's what I said that offended you:

You said, above:

When it comes to the religious question, we are talking about eternal destinies--heaven (eternal life) or hell (eternal death). When you say that we have to choose either [eternal] life or [eternal] death, how could you define those two options as other than a destiny--and the choosing of one as other than the deciding of one's own destiny?

We agree on certain things, since we are both believers. We agree that eternal life and eternal death are the only possible destin-ations, and that it is God who has determined these boundaries, as well as the boundaries of how and why anyone ends up in either place. God has determined many things for us. But, if, as you claim, He has not determined which destiny of the two will be ours, then who is it who determines that? According to your words, God has put that decision in the hands of each individual.

Will you please clarify this for me? As I see it, it is just as possible to misrepresent one's own position as to misrepresent someone else's. Thanks.

 

I disagree about the word scheme. It’s used in the same sense as system or idea. I often use it when describing my own view. Nonetheless, I will avoid using it in the future.

What do you mean by “God determined that choice?” If you only mean to say that God determined that the man would choose, that only further supports the idea that the man himself determines what he will decide. But if you mean to say that God determined which option the man would choose, then that’s divine determinism. Man’s response is indeed relevant. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t reasonably claim “it’s all God,” but at the same time claim that the man chooses without divine determinism ( which would be the same as to say, “it’s all man.”)

As for your question, I’m not a Calvinist. I’m a Baptist Centrist (a Congruist by Warfield’s standards). I hold to unconditional election and the free will of men to “choose otherwise.” Those who would claim such a view is self-contradictory are missing the distinction between what is necessary and what is merely certain. You can find my views on just about anything here.

In short, I find in Scripture that the inability of sinners is moral, not natural. Being spiritually dead is not a metaphor for inability, it’s a literal condition of being in spiritual disunion with God. Moral inability is is a figurative disability describing what one cannot find in one’s heart to do. Literally, it is unwillingness, and the remedy is sufficient persuasion. No man can come to Christ unless the Father draw him because no one unwilling can come. Those who come have been taught by the Father—that’s the drawing. The drawing is also figurative and not literal— else those drawn would be dragged by a giant hand of God coming from the sky, Clearly, the figurative meaning is intended.

So, here’s the problem: all men are averse toward God. They are therefore morally unable to come. If God is to save a man, He must bring about/permit/orchestrate enough of the right kinds of influences in the man’s life to cause him to surrender in genuine, repentant faith. Different people need different amounts of influence in order to come to faith. And people get different amounts. There’s a great difference between the child who died soon after gaining an accountable understanding (reaching moral agency) and an old unbeliever who has lived under gospel preaching his whole long life. We see people get saved under both conditions— and also those who do not. The fact is that God knows how much and what kinds of influences are needed. Either He chooses to bring these influences to bear or He does not. That’s how I answer your question.

 

My view is clear that God determines destinies. No man would come to God apart from His gracious persuasions. No man Is too difficult for God to persuade, and all men benefit from at least enough divine persuasion to leave them without excuse. We’re it not for God deciding to fully persuade some, none would be saved. Therefore, every man who is saved owes it all to the One who decided to fully persuade him, knowing full well what that would take.

 

Thanks. When you’re secure in the truth, it becomes less about you. The truth is strong enough to stand without my defense and without your concurrence.

 

Well, if substantive positions can be vitiated by soundbites, then, congrats...