Dr. D. Wallace's View of Election

[Van]

The Biblical Doctrine of Election

Daniel B. Wallace has posted “My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election” and the following presents a discussion of the merits of that view. In Doctor Wallace’s words, “having a good conscious about the text does not require agreement with others; it requires being faithful to pursue truth at all costs to the best of your abilities.” Amen to that!

Daniel is a man of integrity and honesty and has provided the world much clarity concerning the Word of God. Nothing that follows should be construed to suggest his views were not carefully developed and soundly reasoned. He is a renowned bible scholar and knows vastly more about what the bible says and how it says it then a great many others, of which I may well be the least.

Having buttered him up, lets move on to smacking some of his views around. Here is the link to his article:
My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election

His first point asserts that if God chooses those who have chosen to believe in Jesus, then He is not choosing us, but we are choosing Him. This view is unwarranted; just because we profess to believe in Jesus does not require God to accept our faith, as demonstrated in Matthew 7 where folks say “Lord, Lord” but Jesus says, “depart, I never knew you.”

His next point is that it is the consistent testimony of scripture that it is God who is doing the choosing not us. This too falls wide of the mark, for Romans 9:16 says it does not depend upon the man who wills, therefore teaching folks can choose to will to be saved and pursue it by various means, such as the works of the Law, or by faith in Christ. So the consistent testimony of scripture is that we can choose to seek God and trust in Christ, but it is God who has the decisive say, for God is the One who credits or rejects our faith and chooses to put us in Christ or not.

The next point postulates a separation between when a person is individually elected to salvation and when their salvation is effected, thus he quotes Dr. Ryrie saying, “there are unsaved people alive today, who though elect, are now lost and will not be saved until they believe.” Ephesians 2:3 is cited as supporting this view, but all this verse says is everyone was lost before they were saved and does not directly address the timing of election. Rather Wallace’s view presupposes election to salvation occurred before the person was (1) physically alive and (2) existed in a lost state. However 1 Peter 2:9-10 does address this issue directly and says once we were not a people (part of God’s chosen people) but now we are a people, and once we had not received mercy and now we have received mercy. This puts God’s choice of us individually after we are alive and does not suggest any delay between election and salvation.

Dr. Wallace’s next assertion is that since we are “totally depraved” that means we suffer from total spiritual inability and are unable to come to God unless spiritually altered by irresistible grace. To support this view, Romans 3:10 to 23 is cited and Ephesians 4:17-19 is cited.

The Romans 3 passage does not say we do not ever understand the gospel, but rather his audience did not understand they were under sin and therefore the works of the Law justifies no flesh. None of us seek God when we are sinning and we all sin, therefore no one seeks God (when sinning). And if you take a look at Ephesians 4:17-19, it refutes rather than supports the assertion. First it says saved folks no longer walk in the futility of mind of the unsaved, and as the Gentiles continue to walk. Now have these unsaved folks that include non-Jews been darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of total spiritual inability? No, it says (1) because of the ignorance that is in them, (2) because the hardness of their heart, (3) they having become callous, and (4) have given themselves over to sinful behavior. Were they born depraved, made sinners by the disobedience of the one? Yes. But in this “depraved” state, they were not callous nor had they turned themselves over to sinful behavior. They became, by the practice of sin, hardened and callous such that they could not be reached with the gospel. Just as the first soil of Matthew 13 is represented as trampled down and unable to receive the gospel.

The next assertion is that Ephesians 2:1-3 supports the idea that the lost are “unresponsive” to anything outside the realm of sin. The passage simply does not address the mechanism of responding to God’s revelation; rather it says before we were saved, we were “dead in our trespasses and sins” and Dr. Wallace’s understanding adds that being “dead” means unable to respond. But the passage does not address that presupposition. If we substitute another presupposition, being spiritually dead means being not “in Christ” and being spiritually alive means being “in Christ”, see Ephesians 1:5, then being dead does not convey a lack of spiritual ability.

His next point is valid, we did not make ourselves alive, being dead aptly modeling our inability to save ourselves especially by the works of the Law, but again this truth does not say we could not want to be saved, to will to be saved, to seek God in a variety of ways. Ephesians 2:8-9 does support the idea that salvation is accomplished by God and not our efforts or works; God puts us in Christ where we are made alive together with Christ.

Daniel’s next point refers to “the process of election” which seeks to convey the idea that we were chosen to be saved before we were born, then at the time of God’s choosing, we are altered by irresistible grace such that we can respond to the gospel, and then He calls us out of darkness and puts us in Christ. Only one tiny problem with all that, and that is everything! 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose us through sanctification by the Spirit, which I believe refers to the Holy Spirit putting us spiritually “in Christ” and through belief in the truth, God choosing to put us in Christ because He credits our faith as righteousness – if our faith passes His muster based on His knowledge of our thoughts, motives and attitudes.

 

[Van]

Continued from prior post:

Next, Dr. Wallace returns to the idea of total spiritual inability and refers to 2 Corinthians 4:4 for support. But does Paul say, “Unless we are altered by irresistible grace, none of the lost can “see” the gospel and respond appropriately? No. “ The devil has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” might mean that those who do not even see the attraction of the gospel message are the type of person described by Jesus as the first soil of Matthew 13. Paul is saying keep preaching even to those who are hard to reach and even if some are impossible to reach. Notice that in Romans 11 where hearts non-believing hearts were hardened by God to preclude lost folks from believing, teaches the same thing, the lost have the capacity to respond appropriately to the gospel unless their hearts have been hardened by God or the practice of sin or both.

Next Daniel says the “means of election” is always through human agency. It appears to me that Dr. Wallace meant to say the part of his process of election concerning hearing the gospel is through human agency. I would reject that and say having God credit our faith, obtained through human agency, as righteousness is the means of election because those whose faith He credits as righteousness He places in Christ, and this is how He chooses us individually, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

God’s conditional election of us, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, does not contradict any of God’s attributes.

Conditional election to salvation through faith results in receiving justification, receiving reconciliation, and results in not only positional sanctification where God puts us spiritually in Christ, but also progressive sanctification under influence of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, God starts a good work in us upon being placed “in Christ” and continues to complete a good work in us for the rest of our life, and then we will receive at His second coming, our predestined inheritance as children of God, which refers to our adoption, our bodily resurrection.

This view of election is fair; those who never hear or understand the gospel get perfect justice in the afterlife, no more and no less. Those whose faith God credits as righteousness get mercy. And mercy perfects justice.

The 2 Thessalonians 2:13 view of individual election demonstrates God is fair, it does not make us robots, and provides more impetus for evangelism.

God is sovereign over our wills, He can allow us to make plans, or not, and He can allow us to make choices or not. If His will is to choose those who choose Him from the heart, no one is overriding His will that all men be saved, once you add the understanding that His desire is that all men be saved according to His purpose and plan.

We are persuaded to believe, we love Him because He first loved us and His love for us not only gave us His Son, but also His Son’s revelation, the gospel of Christ.

Summary, the biblical doctrine of election is not Doctor Wallace’s doctrine of election, it is conditional, it occurs during our lifetime; God chose us individually out of this world, not before the foundation of the world, when He chose Christ. The only way I see to reconcile Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and John 15:19 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 and James 2:5 is to understand the phrase “He chose us in Him” as meaning He chose Christ to be His Redeemer, His Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:20) before the foundation of the world, and since you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem, God’s choice of Christ chose us corporately as a target group of His Redemption plan but not individually. Thus Paul is speaking to those who have been redeemed during their lives, and is letting them know of the many blessings they have received, the first one being the blessing that was directed toward them when God chose Christ.

 

[HankD]

For the sake of the discussion let us make the presumption that the calvinistic view of election is true (unconditional election).

Making that presumption I personally would not accept it because it WAS conditional.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The condition: the counsel of His own will.

None of us were there at that counsel meeting!

One thing most of us know (Arminians, calvinists, etc...).

This is probably one of the criteria (which applies to all of us):
We were/are/will ever be hopeless and helpless to save and/or keep ourselves (individually or collectively)

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

He - individually.
Ye - collectively.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Continued from prior post:

Next, Dr. Wallace returns to the idea of total spiritual inability and refers to 2 Corinthians 4:4 for support. But does Paul say, “Unless we are altered by irresistible grace, none of the lost can “see” the gospel and respond appropriately? No. “ The devil has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” might mean that those who do not even see the attraction of the gospel message are the type of person described by Jesus as the first soil of Matthew 13. Paul is saying keep preaching even to those who are hard to reach and even if some are impossible to reach. Notice that in Romans 11 where hearts non-believing hearts were hardened by God to preclude lost folks from believing, teaches the same thing, the lost have the capacity to respond appropriately to the gospel unless their hearts have been hardened by God or the practice of sin or both.

Next Daniel says the “means of election” is always through human agency. It appears to me that Dr. Wallace meant to say the part of his process of election concerning hearing the gospel is through human agency. I would reject that and say having God credit our faith, obtained through human agency, as righteousness is the means of election because those whose faith He credits as righteousness He places in Christ, and this is how He chooses us individually, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

God’s conditional election of us, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, does not contradict any of God’s attributes.

Conditional election to salvation through faith results in receiving justification, receiving reconciliation, and results in not only positional sanctification where God puts us spiritually in Christ, but also progressive sanctification under influence of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, God starts a good work in us upon being placed “in Christ” and continues to complete a good work in us for the rest of our life, and then we will receive at His second coming, our predestined inheritance as children of God, which refers to our adoption, our bodily resurrection.

This view of election is fair; those who never hear or understand the gospel get perfect justice in the afterlife, no more and no less. Those whose faith God credits as righteousness get mercy. And mercy perfects justice.

The 2 Thessalonians 2:13 view of individual election demonstrates God is fair, it does not make us robots, and provides more impetus for evangelism.

God is sovereign over our wills, He can allow us to make plans, or not, and He can allow us to make choices or not. If His will is to choose those who choose Him from the heart, no one is overriding His will that all men be saved, once you add the understanding that His desire is that all men be saved according to His purpose and plan.

We are persuaded to believe, we love Him because He first loved us and His love for us not only gave us His Son, but also His Son’s revelation, the gospel of Christ.

Summary, the biblical doctrine of election is not Doctor Wallace’s doctrine of election, it is conditional, it occurs during our lifetime; God chose us individually out of this world, not before the foundation of the world, when He chose Christ. The only way I see to reconcile Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and John 15:19 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 and James 2:5 is to understand the phrase “He chose us in Him” as meaning He chose Christ to be His Redeemer, His Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:20) before the foundation of the world, and since you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem, God’s choice of Christ chose us corporately as a target group of His Redemption plan but not individually. Thus Paul is speaking to those who have been redeemed during their lives, and is letting them know of the many blessings they have received, the first one being the blessing that was directed toward them when God chose Christ.

You are basically restating to us the "elect in the son" theology, that will not hold, for God indeed chose us to get saved on an individual basis. and not on a type of corporate election!

 

[Calv1]

Continued from prior post:

Next, Dr. Wallace returns to the idea of total spiritual inability and refers to 2 Corinthians 4:4 for support. But does Paul say, “Unless we are altered by irresistible grace, none of the lost can “see” the gospel and respond appropriately? No. “ The devil has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” might mean that those who do not even see the attraction of the gospel message are the type of person described by Jesus as the first soil of Matthew 13. Paul is saying keep preaching even to those who are hard to reach and even if some are impossible to reach. Notice that in Romans 11 where hearts non-believing hearts were hardened by God to preclude lost folks from believing, teaches the same thing, the lost have the capacity to respond appropriately to the gospel unless their hearts have been hardened by God or the practice of sin or both.

Next Daniel says the “means of election” is always through human agency. It appears to me that Dr. Wallace meant to say the part of his process of election concerning hearing the gospel is through human agency. I would reject that and say having God credit our faith, obtained through human agency, as righteousness is the means of election because those whose faith He credits as righteousness He places in Christ, and this is how He chooses us individually, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

God’s conditional election of us, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, does not contradict any of God’s attributes.

Conditional election to salvation through faith results in receiving justification, receiving reconciliation, and results in not only positional sanctification where God puts us spiritually in Christ, but also progressive sanctification under influence of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, God starts a good work in us upon being placed “in Christ” and continues to complete a good work in us for the rest of our life, and then we will receive at His second coming, our predestined inheritance as children of God, which refers to our adoption, our bodily resurrection.

This view of election is fair; those who never hear or understand the gospel get perfect justice in the afterlife, no more and no less. Those whose faith God credits as righteousness get mercy. And mercy perfects justice.

The 2 Thessalonians 2:13 view of individual election demonstrates God is fair, it does not make us robots, and provides more impetus for evangelism.

God is sovereign over our wills, He can allow us to make plans, or not, and He can allow us to make choices or not. If His will is to choose those who choose Him from the heart, no one is overriding His will that all men be saved, once you add the understanding that His desire is that all men be saved according to His purpose and plan.

We are persuaded to believe, we love Him because He first loved us and His love for us not only gave us His Son, but also His Son’s revelation, the gospel of Christ.

Summary, the biblical doctrine of election is not Doctor Wallace’s doctrine of election, it is conditional, it occurs during our lifetime; God chose us individually out of this world, not before the foundation of the world, when He chose Christ. The only way I see to reconcile Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and John 15:19 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 and James 2:5 is to understand the phrase “He chose us in Him” as meaning He chose Christ to be His Redeemer, His Lamb of God (1 Peter 1:20) before the foundation of the world, and since you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem, God’s choice of Christ chose us corporately as a target group of His Redemption plan but not individually. Thus Paul is speaking to those who have been redeemed during their lives, and is letting them know of the many blessings they have received, the first one being the blessing that was directed toward them when God chose Christ.

Is there a point to this? I know Dr. Wallace, what's your point?

 

[Van]

Let's see, three posts all seemingly aimed at deflection.

Hank acknowledged God's election of individuals for salvation was conditional, but did not say it was conditioned on God crediting our faith as righteousness.

Yeshua1 claimed the counter view to that of Dr. D. Wallace did not include our individual election for salvation. A red herring.

Calv1 asked what was the point of the thread, as if He did not grasp the opening posts.

No one actually addressed the counter arguments to those held by Dr. Wallace.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is there a point to this? I know Dr. Wallace, what's your point?

I think that the good Dr refutes calvinism views on election, maybe?
And do you know him from school or?

 

[HankD]

Refutes? Hmm.

Anyway yes, I suppose my view could be seen as a deflection.

However over and over I have never taken sides in the unending debate concerning the tension between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man related to "election".
I rarely visit this forum.

Just checking things out.

By way of determining application : when the bible text uses "choose" in the context of humankind or some other signature word of free will, I go with that.

When the text talks of God's choice to the exclusion of man, I go with that.

So, I differ from Dr. Wallace.

Yes, I am unashamedly guilty of Orwell's doublethink in this matter, I am not going to lie, just being honest.

Just am not able to figure out God and His ways.

I don't know which side I will come down on - probably never in this earthly pilgrimage.

But if the LORD sends enlightenment then I will know.

I was terrified and running from God, but He caught up with me and saved me, I was glad He did!

This one thing I do know - Jesus is my LORD, my God, my Savior, my deliverer, my all in all and I love Him.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Refutes? Hmm.

Anyway yes, I suppose my view could be seen as a deflection.

However over and over I have never taken sides in the unending debate concerning the tension between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man related to "election".
I rarely visit this forum.

Just checking things out.

By way of determining application : when the bible text uses "choose" in the context of humankind or some other signature word of free will, I go with that.

When the text talks of God's choice to the exclusion of man, I go with that.

So, I differ from Dr. Wallace.

Yes, I am unashamedly guilty of Orwell's doublethink in this matter, I am not going to lie, just being honest.

Just am not able to figure out God and His ways.

I don't know which side I will come down on - probably never in this earthly pilgrimage.

But if the LORD sends enlightenment then I will know.

I was terrified and running from God, but He caught up with me and saved me, I was glad He did!

This one thing I do know - Jesus is my LORD, my God, my Savior, my deliverer, my all in all and I love Him.

HankD

I was saying that the reason for Van to post is that HE thinks dr Wallace refutes calvinism!

 

[Van]

I was saying the reason Yeshua1 posts is deflection, posting one red herring after another. At least Hank admitted his effort. The reason was a little arcane.

No one actually addressed the counter arguments to those held by Dr. Wallace.

 

[HankD]

I was saying the reason Yeshua1 posts is deflection, posting one red herring after another. At least Hank admitted his effort. The reason was a little arcane.

Who ME!?

arcane:
understood by few; mysterious or secret.
"modern math and its arcane notation"
synonyms: mysterious, secret;


HankD

 

[JamesL]

Van, I have questions:

What the heck are you looking for?
Are you looking for someone to help you refute Wallace?
Are you looking for someone to argue his point against you?
Are you looking for someone to prove you both wrong?

I don't get your point

 

[Van]

Hi James, I refuted Dr. Wallace's view of Election. So no help needed.
No one will argue his points as they are bogus. After many years here, if I get any response it will be off topic, a "taint so and Van you are rotten for saying so" response.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Hi James, I refuted Dr. Wallace's view of Election. So no help needed.
No one will argue his points as they are bogus. After many years here, if I get any response it will be off topic, a "taint so and Van you are rotten for saying so" response.

More from Dr. Wallace on election:

https://bible.org/article/corporate-election

A good friend who is also a pastor wrote to me recently about the nature of election. He wondered if it were possible for Christians to be chosen in Christ—that is, for Christians not to be elected individually, but only as a corporate entity. The idea was that Christ is the chosen one and if a person is “in Christ,” then he’s chosen too. This is known as corporate election.

Here are some thoughts on the issue of corporate election.



Dear Pastor _______,

Preliminarily, I should address an antecedent issue. Although I will express my opinion, you of course have to come to your own conclusions. Having a good conscience about the text doesn’t require agreement with others; it requires being faithful to pursue truth at all costs to the best of your abilities. To be sure, you want to seek the counsel and input of various experts. But when the day is done, you have to stand before God and tell him how you see your views as in harmony with Holy Writ. In other words, I never want you to feel any kind of intimidation or pressure from me or anyone else about your handling of the text. I do of course want you to feel a great duty (as you always have) to the Lord in the handling of his word. At bottom, all of us have to give an account of ourselves to the Lord, and any human loyalties will have no standing before him.

Now, on to the issue!

First, allow me to clarify the issue: By corporate election I suppose you mean that only those who will be in Christ are chosen and that God does not specifically choose individuals but only chooses the sphere (“in Christ”) in which the elective purposes of God can take place. Thus, if one embraces Christ he is chosen.

If that is what you mean by corporate election, then I would reject it. Here are the reasons why:

First, the authors you cited seemed to make a conceptual-lexical equation (i.e., if the word “elect” was used, only groups were in view; ergo, election is only corporate). That view has been regarded by linguists and biblical scholars as linguistically naïve. James Barr in his Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961) makes a lengthy and devastating critique of Kittel’s ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament for its numerous linguistic fallacies. Among them is this conceptual-lexical equation. Allow me to unpack this a bit more: conceptual-lexical equation means that one does not find the concept unless he sees the words. That seems to be an underlying assumption in the authors you cited. However, where else do we argue this? Would we not say that the concept of fellowship occurs everwhere in the New Testament? Yet the word κοινωνία is found only twenty times. Or consider the deity of Christ: If we could only speak of Christ’s deity in passages where he is explicitly called “God,” then we are shut up to no more than about half a dozen texts. Yet the New Testament wreaks of the deity of Christ—via his actions, attributes that are ascribed to him, Old Testament quotations made of him, implicit and explicit statements made about him. Hence, our first question needs to be: Do we see the concept of election as a corporate notion or an individual one?

Second, I think that there may be a false antithesis between corporate and individual election. Proof that God elects corporately is not proof that he does not elect individually (any more than proof that all are called sinners in 1 But this election was entirely initiated by Jesus (“you did not choose me, but I chose you”). Initiation and selection are the prerogatives of the Lord. Corporate election makes absolutely no sense in this context; and further, the elective purposes and methods of God incarnate are the same, whether it is of his apostles for service or of sinners for salvation.

2 through predestination, through calling, through justification, and to glorification. At any point if we wish to broaden the group beyond those who are actually saved, we violate the grammar of the text and the point of the apostle. Thus, unless we want to hold to universal salvation, we must surely view this text as being restrictive. God’s initiative and efficacy in our salvation are clearly indicated here.

Well, that’s a quick treatment on corporate election. For a more detailed look at it, I would recommend James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom, a book which takes on one of evangelicalism’s greatest Arminian apologists, Norm Geisler.

God bless you in your pursuit of truth for his glory. It’s quite an adventure isn’t it?

1 What is significant here is that the choice of Judas actually illustrates that election is entirely unconditional. Judas certainly did not possess the kind of character that made him suitable to be an apostle. Yet Jesus chose him anyway—knowing his character and what he would do.

2 As I’m sure you’re aware, God’s foreknowledge in the NT does not refer simply to knowing beforehand, but to God’s loving selection beforehand. Otherwise, the significance of the death of Christ has to be reinterpreted (Election

• Español

 

[Van]

Thank you Katarina for addressing the topic, very refreshing. As you may have noticed, the rebuttal to Dr. Wallace's view was not conditional election for salvation. It included conditional election based on Ephesians 1:4, when God chose His Redeemer, He chose us (those to be redeemed corporately) in Him. But, the alternate view includes individual election for salvation, as per 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

But lets address Dr. Wallace's points in your post:

1) First, correctly Dr. Wallace indicates the word used (choice/elect) can address either individual or corporate election. But the point is moot, as noted, because the alternate view is based on individual election for salvation.

2) Second, Dr. Wallace claims that because Jesus chose individually His apostles, that demonstrates God chose individually those for salvation. God does choose us individually for salvation, but his verse in no way demonstrates that fact. And again, the point is moot, the alternate view correctly acknowledges God chooses us individually for salvation.

3) Dr. Wallace repeats his point (numbered 2) that our election for salvation is individual.

4) Next Dr. Wallace attempts to claim the election of Judas was unconditional. Utterly false, Judas was known from the beginning and was chosen to be the betrayer. His character and attributes were well suited to that task.

5) Finally Dr. Wallace claims the concept of "foreknowledge" as used in the NT refers loving beforehand those elected. Actually the term when used in the NT refers to using knowledge acquired beforehand in the present, such as implementing a predetermined plan according to foreknowledge.

 

[percho]

For the sake of the discussion let us make the presumption that the calvinistic view of election is true (unconditional election).

Making that presumption I personally would not accept it because it WAS conditional.

Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The condition: the counsel of His own will.

None of us were there at that counsel meeting!

One thing most of us know (Arminians, calvinists, etc...).

This is probably one of the criteria (which applies to all of us):
We were/are/will ever be hopeless and helpless to save and/or keep ourselves (individually or collectively)

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

He - individually.
Ye - collectively.

HankD

Predestined - elect?

"His will," is used in verse 9 and verse 11. Is verse 10 as predestined as, verse 5?

Are the predestined of verse 5 the same as those begotten of James 1:18? Who are the, "other," fruit if they are are a kind of first fruit? To whom is this letter addressed?

Is God doing the electing according to his will or does he offer a choice and elects them that elect him. How does that reconcile with Eph 1:10 as to what God is doing?

I have a lot more questions than I do answers.

I do know one thing.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Another question. Does Acts 15:8,14-17 say the same thing as Eph 1:4 -10?

 

[percho]

More from Dr. Wallace on election:

https://bible.org/article/corporate-election

A good friend who is also a pastor wrote to me recently about the nature of election. He wondered if it were possible for Christians to be chosen in Christ—that is, for Christians not to be elected individually, but only as a corporate entity. The idea was that Christ is the chosen one and if a person is “in Christ,” then he’s chosen too. This is known as corporate election.

Here are some thoughts on the issue of corporate election.



Dear Pastor _______,

Preliminarily, I should address an antecedent issue. Although I will express my opinion, you of course have to come to your own conclusions. Having a good conscience about the text doesn’t require agreement with others; it requires being faithful to pursue truth at all costs to the best of your abilities. To be sure, you want to seek the counsel and input of various experts. But when the day is done, you have to stand before God and tell him how you see your views as in harmony with Holy Writ. In other words, I never want you to feel any kind of intimidation or pressure from me or anyone else about your handling of the text. I do of course want you to feel a great duty (as you always have) to the Lord in the handling of his word. At bottom, all of us have to give an account of ourselves to the Lord, and any human loyalties will have no standing before him.

Now, on to the issue!

First, allow me to clarify the issue: By corporate election I suppose you mean that only those who will be in Christ are chosen and that God does not specifically choose individuals but only chooses the sphere (“in Christ”) in which the elective purposes of God can take place. Thus, if one embraces Christ he is chosen.

If that is what you mean by corporate election, then I would reject it. Here are the reasons why:

First, the authors you cited seemed to make a conceptual-lexical equation (i.e., if the word “elect” was used, only groups were in view; ergo, election is only corporate). That view has been regarded by linguists and biblical scholars as linguistically naïve. James Barr in his Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961) makes a lengthy and devastating critique of Kittel’s ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament for its numerous linguistic fallacies. Among them is this conceptual-lexical equation. Allow me to unpack this a bit more: conceptual-lexical equation means that one does not find the concept unless he sees the words. That seems to be an underlying assumption in the authors you cited. However, where else do we argue this? Would we not say that the concept of fellowship occurs everwhere in the New Testament? Yet the word κοινωνία is found only twenty times. Or consider the deity of Christ: If we could only speak of Christ’s deity in passages where he is explicitly called “God,” then we are shut up to no more than about half a dozen texts. Yet the New Testament wreaks of the deity of Christ—via his actions, attributes that are ascribed to him, Old Testament quotations made of him, implicit and explicit statements made about him. Hence, our first question needs to be: Do we see the concept of election as a corporate notion or an individual one?

Second, I think that there may be a false antithesis between corporate and individual election. Proof that God elects corporately is not proof that he does not elect individually (any more than proof that all are called sinners in 1 But this election was entirely initiated by Jesus (“you did not choose me, but I chose you”). Initiation and selection are the prerogatives of the Lord. Corporate election makes absolutely no sense in this context; and further, the elective purposes and methods of God incarnate are the same, whether it is of his apostles for service or of sinners for salvation.

2 through predestination, through calling, through justification, and to glorification. At any point if we wish to broaden the group beyond those who are actually saved, we violate the grammar of the text and the point of the apostle. Thus, unless we want to hold to universal salvation, we must surely view this text as being restrictive. God’s initiative and efficacy in our salvation are clearly indicated here.

Well, that’s a quick treatment on corporate election. For a more detailed look at it, I would recommend James White’s book, The Potter’s Freedom, a book which takes on one of evangelicalism’s greatest Arminian apologists, Norm Geisler.

God bless you in your pursuit of truth for his glory. It’s quite an adventure isn’t it?

1 What is significant here is that the choice of Judas actually illustrates that election is entirely unconditional. Judas certainly did not possess the kind of character that made him suitable to be an apostle. Yet Jesus chose him anyway—knowing his character and what he would do.

2 As I’m sure you’re aware, God’s foreknowledge in the NT does not refer simply to knowing beforehand, but to God’s loving selection beforehand. Otherwise, the significance of the death of Christ has to be reinterpreted (Election

• Español

I like and agree with this post. Esp, 1 and 2 at the end and the para beginning, 2 through predestination.

 

[HankD]

Predestined - elect?

"His will," is used in verse 9 and verse 11. Is verse 10 as predestined as, verse 5?

I cannot figure out what you are asking from the following:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: {heaven: Gr. the heavens}
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Are the predestined of verse 5 the same as those begotten of James 1:18? Who are the, "other," fruit if they are are a kind of first fruit? To whom is this letter addressed?

I don't think so.

The letter is addressed to anyone who can understand it.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Is God doing the electing according to his will or does he offer a choice and elects them that elect him. How does that reconcile with Eph 1:10 as to what God is doing?

I'm not fully convinced of either the Arius election by foreknowledge theory or the Calvin unconditional election theory.

I have a lot more questions than I do answers.

I do know one thing.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Another question. Does Acts 15:8,14-17 say the same thing as Eph 1:4 -10?

IMO there is an approximation of the same thing being reported but the Spirit used the human intellect, personality and character of the different human authors to put different emphases and nuances on a common theme of the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
...
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Ephesians
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

 

[Van]

Is God doing the electing according to his will or does he offer a choice and elects them that elect him. How does that reconcile with Eph 1:10 as to what God is doing?

His will is to elect those whose faith He credits as righteousness. Everyone believing in Him (as determined by God) shall not perish but have eternal life. This view is consistent with Ephesians 1:10, and every other passage as well.

In order for God to elect those whose faith He credits as righteousness, the individual election for salvation must occur during the person's lifetime, just as presented in the opening posts. Therefore, our election before the foundation of the world was corporate.
God chooses those who are rich in faith, who are heirs to the kingdom promised to those that love God.

 

[HankD]

His will is to elect those whose faith He credits as righteousness. Everyone believing in Him (as determined by God) shall not perish but have eternal life. This view is consistent with Ephesians 1:10, and every other passage as well.

In order for God to elect those whose faith He credits as righteousness, the individual election for salvation must occur during the person's lifetime, just as presented in the opening posts. Therefore, our election before the foundation of the world was corporate.
God chooses those who are rich in faith, who are heirs to the kingdom promised to those that love God.

What does that emboldened sentence mean VAN? How is corporately any different from individually for God before the foundation of the world. Does He not know each individual in the "corporation"?

Not A GOTCHA Sincerely, but I would like to hear your explanation.

Thanks
HankD