Corporate Election

[Revmitchell]

Eph 1:4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.

Who is it that was chose before the foundation? those that are "in Him". Not Mark, not Sally, not Sam, not Gertrude but those who are "in Him".

No believers are ever in the chosen category until they become "in Him". Now they are chosen.,

That is all.

 

[agedman]

Eph 1:4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.

Who is it that was chose before the foundation? those that are "in Him". Not Mark, not Sally, not Sam, not Gertrude but those who are "in Him".

No believers are ever in the chosen category until they become "in Him". Now they are chosen.,

That is all.

Perhaps you need to attend to the language the letter was originally written.

If my memory doesn’t fail, the “he chose us in him before the foundation” is a specific selection made in time indicated as before the creation.

The English words “us in Him” are not actually part of the original, but added to keep the focus upon the members of the assembly.

As is my custom, if I am wrong, I submit to those far more near to the language work then me.


But, ultimately, this letter is from an individual to the individual members of the assembly, which may have included a “Sally, Sam, Gertrude” - individual members that gather together in fellowship.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps you need to attend to the language the letter was originally written.

If my memory doesn’t fail, the “he chose us in him before the foundation” is a specific selection made in time indicated as before the creation.

The English words “us in Him” are not actually part of the original, but added to keep the focus upon the members of the assembly.

As is my custom, if I am wrong, I submit to those far more near to the language work then me.

I hesitate to describe myself as any sort of expert in the original languages, but the words 'us in Him' are in the original (hemas en auto).

But, ultimately, this letter is from an individual to the individual members of the assembly, which may have included a “Sally, Sam, Gertrude” - individual members that gather together in fellowship.

Absolutely right! each one of us was chosen by God the Father before the foundation of the world and given to Christ to redeem (e.g. John 6:39). Not one of these shall be lost, but there is no salvation outside of Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

Eph 1:4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.

Who is it that was chose before the foundation? those that are "in Him". Not Mark, not Sally, not Sam, not Gertrude but those who are "in Him".

No believers are ever in the chosen category until they become "in Him". Now they are chosen.,

That is all.

Is this name all your heresies month?
Do you we have to post all error to start the new year?
Should we believe God elected no one in particular at all?
Or do we have a god who is a spectator learning something everyday?
Is it respectable to ignore truth, then supply your own ideas rather than truth?
When we deny clear teaching of scripture...should we refer to ourselves as Rev?

 

[Iconoclast]

I hesitate to describe myself as any sort of expert in the original languages, but the words 'us in Him' are in the original (hemas en auto).

Absolutely right! each one of us was chosen by God the Father before the foundation of the world and given to Christ to redeem (e.g. John 6:39). Not one of these shall be lost, but there is no salvation outside of Christ.

So...are you saying all men should believe what God has declared on election of individuals Martin?
Wow.....even 2tim1:9?

 

[JonC]

Is this name all your heresies month?
Do you we have to post all error to start the new year?
Should we believe God elected no one in particular at all?
Or do we have a god who is a spectator learning something everyday?
Is it respectable to ignore truth, then supply your own ideas rather than truth?
When we deny clear teaching of scripture...should we refer to ourselves as Rev?

Although you may disagree with the idea of corporate election in regards to salvation, the view is not heresy. There are instances where election is plainly corporate. In Romans 9, for example, Paul uses election to refer to God’s choosing of a people (specifically, the “elect” or the “people of God” to include Jews and Gentiles). The Old Testament also refers to election in the corporate sense (the “chosen” are so because they are of God’s people – individuals are not chosen to be included in this bunch, but are rather members of the chosen).

The issue cannot be whether or not corporate election is correct as it is plainly stated in Scripture (to Israel God says He has chosen them; Christians (as a whole) are chosen as a royal priesthood, etc.). The issue, I believe, is whether or not individual election is biblical.

My question would be whether or not we can have an elect people, chosen from the foundations of the world, known to God and predestined for His purposes, without the individuals making up this group also being chosen. Can we choose a group without choosing the members that make up that group? In this sense, it seems that the idea of corporate election may imply individual election as well. Otherwise the only thing that is “chosen” is a team name – a structure without regard to the roster.

Unless, perhaps, the Elect (the "chosen one") is Christ and those who are numbered among the elect are those who are "in Christ". I think that this topic deserves more thought than will be given on this forum.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Eph 1:4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.

Who is it that was chose before the foundation? those that are "in Him". Not Mark, not Sally, not Sam, not Gertrude but those who are "in Him".

No believers are ever in the chosen category until they become "in Him". Now they are chosen.,

That is all.

Indeed! The "Church" of the Lord Jesus Christ, is from the Greek "ἐκκλησία", or, "the assembly, congregation"; which is from "ἔκκλητος ", "the elect, the called out". ALL who are born-again, and therefore "IN Jesus Christ" are part of the "ἐκκλησία", because they by becoming born-again, are "ἔκκλητος ". Nothing "prior" to their "election" to salvation before they are part of the "ἐκκλησία". This is very simple in the whole Bible, with the Jews in the Old Testament, and Christians in the New Testament. The whole idea of "election to salvation" was foreign to the Church till the time of Augustine, who was so very wrong on "double-predestination", and more so on his acceptance of the "ransom theory" for the Atonement of Jesus Christ!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I cannot see anything "funny" in what I have shown to be true from Scripture. If you have a rebuttal, the lets see it!

 

[agedman]

Indeed! The "Church" of the Lord Jesus Christ, is from the Greek "ἐκκλησία", or, "the assembly, congregation"; which is from "ἔκκλητος ", "the elect, the called out". ALL who are born-again, and therefore "IN Jesus Christ" are part of the "ἐκκλησία", because they by becoming born-again, are "ἔκκλητος ". Nothing "prior" to their "election" to salvation before they are part of the "ἐκκλησία". This is very simple in the whole Bible, with the Jews in the Old Testament, and Christians in the New Testament. The whole idea of "election to salvation" was foreign to the Church till the time of Augustine, who was so very wrong on "double-predestination", and more so on his acceptance of the "ransom theory" for the Atonement of Jesus Christ!

I agree about ransom theory and double predestination. I consider such as error, though some may not.

The church members make up the assembly and when gathered is called a church.

The word “assembly, congregation” is not always used as believers gathered but any gathering of a people. For example Acts 19:39.

"But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly​

From a personal perspective, I never felt comfortable with the typical Corporate Election presentations, even when I was a young man.

The difficulty is basically the assumptions found and in particular the presentation that God has limited knowledge, and that God is not perfectly precise in His creating. That God elected some unformed grouping that He would eventually marry.

That seems completely unthinkable. What groom, who had authority and power over the very form and presentation of His bride down to the very microcell level, would not take more care then any other aspect of the creation in the minute details of that Bride?

Therefore, I cannot compare a corporate to that of election in this matter of salvation.

However, the term corporate, if taken as a legal body in which certain rights, privelages, and policies are held consistent with that corporate, then the assembly as a total grouping of all believers of all ages may have some traction and accountable thinking. Just as the corporate of Jews were taken from Egypt, the law given to that grouping marking them as distinct from all others, and presenting within them that which G9d had planned.

 

[Iconoclast]

Although you may disagree with the idea of corporate election in regards to salvation, the view is not heresy. There are instances where election is plainly corporate. In Romans 9, for example, Paul uses election to refer to God’s choosing of a people (specifically, the “elect” or the “people of God” to include Jews and Gentiles). The Old Testament also refers to election in the corporate sense (the “chosen” are so because they are of God’s people – individuals are not chosen to be included in this bunch, but are rather members of the chosen).

The issue cannot be whether or not corporate election is correct as it is plainly stated in Scripture (to Israel God says He has chosen them; Christians (as a whole) are chosen as a royal priesthood, etc.). The issue, I believe, is whether or not individual election is biblical.

My question would be whether or not we can have an elect people, chosen from the foundations of the world, known to God and predestined for His purposes, without the individuals making up this group also being chosen. Can we choose a group without choosing the members that make up that group? In this sense, it seems that the idea of corporate election may imply individual election as well. Otherwise the only thing that is “chosen” is a team name – a structure without regard to the roster.

Unless, perhaps, the Elect (the "chosen one") is Christ and those who are numbered among the elect are those who are "in Christ". I think that this topic deserves more thought than will be given on this forum.

I disagree about 80 percent here....I will get to a keyboard in awhile to explore this...

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I agree about ransom theory and double predestination. I consider such as error, though some may not.

The church members make up the assembly and when gathered is called a church.

The word “assembly, congregation” is not always used as believers gathered but any gathering of a people. For example Acts 19:39.

"But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly​

From a personal perspective, I never felt comfortable with the typical Corporate Election presentations, even when I was a young man.

The difficulty is basically the assumptions found and in particular the presentation that God has limited knowledge, and that God is not perfectly precise in His creating. That God elected some unformed grouping that He would eventually marry.

That seems completely unthinkable. What groom, who had authority and power over the very form and presentation of His bride down to the very microcell level, would not take more care then any other aspect of the creation in the minute details of that Bride?

Therefore, I cannot compare a corporate to that of election in this matter of salvation.

However, the term corporate, if taken as a legal body in which certain rights, privelages, and policies are held consistent with that corporate, then the assembly as a total grouping of all believers of all ages may have some traction and accountable thinking. Just as the corporate of Jews were taken from Egypt, the law given to that grouping marking them as distinct from all others, and presenting within them that which G9d had planned.

That "election" is to "eternal life", with the sinner not being called upon to "repent and believe the Gospel" is not Bible theology. One cannot escape the fact, that from Luke 22, we read that Jesus Christ said that His Death also included Judas, which causes a huge problem for those who suppose this His Death was only for the "elect"?

 

[Van]

Corporate Election


First lets define “corporate” election as God making a choice to deal with a group of people according to His purpose. Thus, whoever is “in the sphere” of His choice is chosen, and therefore anyone who enters that sphere becomes chosen or elect. The concept does not include a specific way to enter that sphere, so it is consistent with the Arminian idea that when a person sincerely puts their trust in Christ, they enter that sphere and become “elect” but corporate election does not preclude denial of human choice as the means of entry. The means must be an additional stipulation.


Secondly, it is a false dichotomy to say if God does sometimes choose to deal with a group for some purpose, that means He does not ever choose individuals for some related purpose. Corporate election does not require the denial of individual election, and individual election does not require the denial of corporate election.


As we wade into the subject of corporate election, our first question might be, do we see in the Bible the notion of corporate election or individual election. The answer is both. As Dr. Daniel B. Wallace wrote, “Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined in Paul.”


Next, to paraphrase Dr. Wallace, “whether individual or corporate election is in view, the election is initiated by God and effected by God. Those who are chosen become what they were chosen for.” Judas was chosen to fulfill the betrayer prophecy, and that is what he became.


Next can there be corporate election without first being individual election? The answer to this depends on how one understands the question. For example Abraham was chosen and then within his descendents the line leading to Christ was promised, the world being blessed through Abraham’s seed. So this would be an example of an individual election resulting in a corporate election. On the other hand God might choose to order the destruction of a people who are in the way of God’s people from fulfilling His purpose. So the answer is there can be corporate elections that are the consequence of individual elections, and there can be corporate elections not as a consequence of an election of some individual from the group.


Which brings us to the crux of the matter, are we chosen corporately to salvation or individually to salvation? Dr. Wallace again correctly pointed out that Romans 8:33 clearly addresses charges being brought against individuals, saying if they are elect, no charge can be brought. Why not? Because they were chosen by God to salvation, and no plan of God can be thwarted. If all has been forgiven by God, no lesser entity can bring any charge. If you have a Presidential pardon, no state governor can charge you with the pardoned crime. Secondly, and this point was definitely not made by Dr. Wallace, if a person was chosen to salvation, they would be elect, but if they had not been saved, then a charge could be brought against them. Thus this verse requires that election to salvation and salvation go hand in hand with no delay between the two.


And if as required by Romans 8:33, there is no delay, when are we chosen? Since many verses clearly teach before we were chosen, we were sinners; our individual election to salvation has to occur during our physical lifetime. In 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 we see God chose what the world saw as weak and foolish, requiring those chosen to be in and therefore known by the world. Second Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen through belief in the truth, requiring that we were alive and believing in Jesus when we were chosen. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says once we were not a people but now we are a people, requiring that we lived before becoming part of God’s chosen people, and also once we had not received mercy but now we have received mercy, again requiring that we lived without receiving mercy, and then we received mercy. Lastly we have God choosing the poor of this world, again requiring people being chosen while living, James 2:5.


In summary, when God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, that was an individual election that resulted in a corporate election, everyone subsequently redeemed was chosen in Him, as the target group of His redemption plan, thus He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world corporately, but we enter that sphere when God individually credits our faith as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 being our individual election to salvation.

 

[TCassidy]

That "election" is to "eternal life", with the sinner not being called upon to "repent and believe the Gospel" is not Bible theology.

Which is probably why nobody believes that.

One cannot escape the fact, that from Luke 22, we read that Jesus Christ said that His Death also included Judas, which causes a huge problem for those who suppose this His Death was only for the "elect"?

Which is probably why nobody believes that.

 

[agedman]

That "election" is to "eternal life", with the sinner not being called upon to "repent and believe the Gospel" is not Bible theology. One cannot escape the fact, that from Luke 22, we read that Jesus Christ said that His Death also included Judas, which causes a huge problem for those who suppose this His Death was only for the "elect"?

I do not disagree with the blood being shed for all sin of all people of all time, for just as the example shown in the OT atonement blood was for all (including slaves and strangers) so was the blood of the Lord Jesus.

However, as far as repentance and belief, as I posted above, those are the results from an already changed heart.

An example is the thief of the crucifixion expressing from a changed heart for before he and the other mocked, he was first changed resulting in confession / repentance / belief.

Another example is that of the Philippian jailor and the Eunuch. Both had a changed heart in which belief and confession were expressed.

The problem that the Wesley brothers confronted was that which concerned the will. They wanted the will to be "reborn" to undergo some metamorphosis into acceptability before God. To do so they were faced with the issue of either accepting a Pelagianistic thinking of one having some innate natural freedom because the person could not really been totally enslaved or shackled by the fallen nature and be able to choose righteousness, or the Wesley's would have to agree with both Arminianistic and Calvinistic thinking that the nature was totally consumed in corruption. So, they invented the thinking in which many Baptists have agreed. That God gives or lifts a person into some "state of Grace" in which the person may then be free to choose righteousness or ungodliness.

Imo, there are at least two evidences of this being a false teaching:
1) There is no Scripture nor Scripture example of such Grace. It remained a totally human contrivance in an attempt to reconcile wrong thinking.

2) The failure of humankind is not a result of the force of the tempter, but the innate rebellion that resides at the core of every person. This is evidenced during the millennial reign when even without that enemy of the Christ (being shackled until released for a season) the humankind rebellion persist (hence there rod of iron rule).

Even the worldly (often ungodly) psychological field has come to understand that there is absolutely not true freedom of the will, and no rescue from addiction without some enormous core change of the person's basic value system.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Which is probably why nobody believes that.

Which is probably why nobody believes that.

I don't know where you get "nobody believe" from, as there are MANY from the "Reformed/Calvinistic" camp that very much believe that Jesus died only for the "elect", and no one else is included!

 

[TCassidy]

I don't know where you get "nobody believe" from, as there are MANY from the "Reformed/Calvinistic" camp that very much believe that Jesus died only for the "elect", and no one else is included!

No, there are not! Once again you prove you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The death of Christ was for all mankind. His sacrifice brought blessing on all people. The rains fall on the just and on the unjust.

The "L" in TULIP limits the atonement in its application, not in its sufficiency to save every person who ever lived, is living, and ever will live.

If you are going to engage in this crusade against Protestant theology at least know what you are talking about before you start!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

No, there are not! Once again you prove you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The death of Christ was for all mankind. His sacrifice brought blessing on all people. The rains fall on the just and on the unjust.

The "L" in TULIP limits the atonement in its application, not in its sufficiency to save every person who ever lived, is living, and ever will live.

If you are going to engage in this crusade against Protestant theology at least know what you are talking about before you start!

Is this wrong?

"Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all)." - The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP

Even though I was never a "Calvinist", I attended a few "Reformed" Churches when living in London, England. I always heard from some of the most "Calvinist" pastors, that Jesus' Death was only intended for the "elect", not just its "application". It appears that "Calvinist/Reformed" themselves don' know what the believe!

Here is from Robert Dabney, a well-known Calvinist:

"the expiation made by Christ is so related to all, irrespective of election, that God can sincerely invite all to enjoy its benefits, that every soul in the world who desires salvation is warranted to appropriate it; and that even a Judas, had he come in earnest, would not have been cast out" (Theology, p.527)

This not only speaks of the universal scope of Christ's Death which is offered to "every soul in the world", but also shows that these same people have the "FREE WILL" to "desire" this salvation, something they could do, if their "wills" were in "bondage" as some teach!

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Although you may disagree with the idea of corporate election in regards to salvation, the view is not heresy.

That I believe is a subjective statement...in my world it is a horrible teaching, or suggestion.

There are instances where election is plainly corporate

.

You have a way of looking at things that works for you, but I do not follow down all the trails you take...so often we will have a few points of agreement and many others where we are not on the same page....that is life.....so lets look;

In Romans 9, for example, Paul uses election to refer to God’s choosing of a people

God choose one nation where he would place His name and among that nation He would elect out individuals to salvation to be found in the promised seed.
Individuals were elected before this nation was formed... to be In the Seed.

Romans 9 clarifies the misconceptions some among Israel had ...that each person in the nation was going to be saved....
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:

This statement alone does not allow for any such idea that all were chosen equally..... and then to make the point even clearer you have the Holy Spirit says this.......

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Paul tells us that choice is made even of twins in the womb.....no corporate election here...it is individual....you cannot get more individual that twins in the womb....

This does not fit both teachings as if both are valid...they are not.

Now.....knowing how you post you are thinking of the finished products, ie, the nation, the church. I think you understand different than those who push this false position.

(specifically, the “elect” or the “people of God” to include Jews and Gentiles).

These verses are showing how there is a transition as Jesus builds His NT. Church.....so....it is individuals called from darkness to light...assembling corporately.....individual living stones.....one stone at a time.

The Old Testament also refers to election in the corporate sense (the “chosen” are so because they are of God’s people – individuals are not chosen to be included in this bunch, but are rather members of the chosen).

I do not agree.The whole bunch was not saved....individuals were elected out of the bunch, individuals who were in Adam, were chosen to be In Christ. Being a physical Israelite did not make them immune from Adams sin.

The issue cannot be whether or not corporate election is correct as it is plainly stated in Scripture (to Israel God says He has chosen them;

This is national election to privlege,...not individual election to salvation out of that nation, into the Holy Nation.

Christians (as a whole) are chosen as a royal priesthood, etc.). The issue, I believe, is whether or not individual election is biblical.

Again.....God saves more than one person...so when the believing church is spoken of...it is spoken of in terms of a church, or a Holy Nation....because the elect individuals have assembled for a purpose.

My question would be whether or not we can have an elect people, chosen from the foundations of the world, known to God and predestined for His purposes, without the individuals making up this group also being chosen.

No....not unless someone is going to try and deny Jesus work as Mediator and Surety for His people.

Can we choose a group without choosing the members that make up that group? In this sense, it seems that the idea of corporate election may imply individual election as well. Otherwise the only thing that is “chosen” is a team name – a structure without regard to the roster.

The answer here is quite obvious in this way...
Election is absolutely necessary as no one would ever seek God.
If God did not set His love on a multitude before the world was...no one would be saved.....so this idea is heretical from the get go.
it is a denial of the truth and reality of the fall into sin and death.
It is an excuse that is offered by those who are in denial and rebellion to revealed truth.
What do i mean? i mean just this; they have tried all the other errors and now think that this one is the charm.

Unless, perhaps, the Elect (the "chosen one") is Christ

Of course Christ is the chosen one...THE ELECT SERVANT....
That is why salvation is a Covenant transaction 100%....
the same people, despise and try and explain away this biblical fact;
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing,

 

[JonC]

I disagree about 80 percent here....I will get to a keyboard in awhile to explore this...

20% is a start

 

[Yeshua1]

No, there are not! Once again you prove you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The death of Christ was for all mankind. His sacrifice brought blessing on all people. The rains fall on the just and on the unjust.

The "L" in TULIP limits the atonement in its application, not in its sufficiency to save every person who ever lived, is living, and ever will live.

If you are going to engage in this crusade against Protestant theology at least know what you are talking about before you start!

Amen, as while the death of Jesus was sufficient to be able to have saved all sinners, it only gets applied in a saving grace sense towards those whom God chose in Christ to get saved.