The Corporate View of election

[The Biblicist]

I guess five years ago someone summarized the difference between personal versus corporate election as follows:

When it says, "...he predestined us to adoption..." You must ask two questions:
1. Who is predestined?
2. What are they predestined to?

The Calvinists answers:

1. Us = Specific unconditionally chosen individuals
2. To what = become believers and thus adopted.

The Corporate Non-Calvinistic answers:
1. Us = Believers
2. To what = Adoption


This is a distortion of both personal election and the text in question. First, the "us" has just been defined in the previous verse as those "chosen in him before the foundation of the world" or the elect PRIOR TO FAITH, thus not as believers. Second, the objective of election has just been previously defined "that we should be blameless and holy before him in love." The predestination of that objective is the subject matter of verses 5-14 which includes far more than adoption.

So, both points under Corporate election are false:

1. US = Elect prior to faith - v. 4
2. To What = that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, and how that is obtained is the subject of those things God predestinated and listed in verses 5-14 rather than merely adoption but includes faith.


Moreover, the idea of corporate election is merely choice to a type of salvation but not the choice of persons to salvation (2 Thes. 2:13-14) is a false idea. Paul said he chose "us" rather than a type of salvation. The individuals are "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" which means God knows each "according to his eternal purpose" of salvation and in every phrase that is carried out (Rom. 8:28-31) and again he is speaking of the elect (Rom. 8:33).

For example, he tells Jeremiah that he not only knew him before he was born but knew him according to his eternal purpose before he was born (jer. 1:5). God told David that His purpose for David was established prior to being formed in his mother's womb (Psa. 139). Paul says that God set him apart from mother's womb as much as he revealed Christ in him according to his own time (Gal.1:15-16).

Are you going to argue he chose them to a generic calling before they were born but did not choose them personally for that calling before they were born? However, that is precisely the kind of logic behind corporate election!

 

[The Biblicist]

The corporate view of election is based upon the concept of foreknown faith in contrast to predetermined faith. Predetermined faith would completely invalidate the corporate view of election (Acts 13;48) and make election personal.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

However, the idea of foreknown faith only has validity if faith originates with man and not God.

If God is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2), or if faith is a gift of God (Philip. 1:29; Eph. 2:8) or a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23) or "of grace" (Rom.4:16) and faith does not originate with man but with God, then God could not possibly look down from heaven into the corridors of time and merely see exercise of saving faith by men apart from divine intervention.

The LORD looked down from heaven on the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no, not one. - Psa. 14:2-3

This is not merely the view of David but it is quoted by Paul as his view of all mankind both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9-11). So the Bible repudiates the idea of foreseen faith originating from man.

Jesus states very clearly that all which the Father has given to the son will come to him by faith (Jn. 6:37-39) and this act of giving occurred prior to the incarnation (Jn. 6:38-39). If any man could come to Christ by faith apart from being given by the Father then the act of being given by the father to come to Christ is rendered unnecessary. Hence, this divine intervention by God is necessary for anyone to come to Christ by faith since "all" given equals all coming to Christ in faith. Thus, all not given to the Son do not come to Christ in faith (Jn. 3:36; 64-65). Hence, coming to Christ by faith requires personal divine intervention rather than mere foresight of a future event.

Jesus states quite clearly that "no man can come to me except it were given him of my Father" (Jn. 6:65). If any man could come to the Son by faith then it would not have to be given to anyone by the Father, thus making the drawing action by God invalid since all could equally come to Christ by faith. However, if none can come to Christ by faith "except it is given to him by the Father" then mere foresight of saving faith is false.

However,advocates for foreseen faith argue that God gives all men without exception the ability to believe and He merely foresees who will and will not exercise that ability and only foreseen believers are chosen in him before the foundation of the world. Hence, the doctrine of foreseen faith denies that God is the author of faith but only the author of the ability which has potential for faith whereas the human will is the author of faith. However, that idea is not compatible with John 6;37-39 or John 6:44-45, 64-65. If ability to believe was given to all men without exception then why would God give anyone to come to Christ (Jn. 6:37-39) since all are given ability to come to Christ? All that are given to come to Christ in John 6:37-39 NONE FAIL to come as Christ says that "of all" which the Father gave to him he shall "lose nothing." If all were given ability to come to Christ by faith then why does Christ deny that such ability was "given" (Jn. 6:65) to those false believers in John 6:64? If "all" are given the ability to come to Christ by faith then why does Christ only quote prophesies that restrict "all" to new covenant children in John 6:45 (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-13)?? If all are given the ability to come to Christ then why does Christ say of some they "could not believe" in him (Jn. 12:39)? If all are given the ability to come to Christ then why does Paul say that "some men have not faith" (2 Thes. 3:2)?

Finally, the very text in question (Eph. 1:4) does not state that God before the foundation of the world chose a type of salvation but chose "us" in a PRE-FAITH' condition as we were not yet born. Paul says he set his love upon us while we were yet sinners in unbelief (Rom. 5:8-9). Moreover,the stated objective for this choice before the world began was that "we should be holy and without blame before him in love" not due to some kind of foreseen action that set us apart from others. The meaning of "holy" is "set apart." The objective of election before time was to secure salvation in time and thus "we" were "chosen to salvation" that was inclusive of faith. Therefore, election before time was not determined by foreseen setting apart by faith, but the objective of election before time was to set us apart to salvation inclusive of faith in time (2 Thes. 2:13 "to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth").

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

Election is as personal as the problem of sin is personal. The solution is as personal as the problem is personal. If election to salvation is corporate and not personal then so is redemptive love, forgiveness of sins and eternal security.

 

[Yeshua1]

The corporate view of election is based upon the concept of foreknown faith in contrast to predetermined faith. Predetermined faith would completely invalidate the corporate view of election (Acts 13;48) and make election personal.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

However, the idea of foreknown faith only has validity if faith originates with man and not God.

If God is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2), or if faith is a gift of God (Philip. 1:29; Eph. 2:8) or a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23) or "of grace" (Rom.4:16) and faith does not originate with man but with God, then God could not possibly look down from heaven into the corridors of time and merely see exercise of saving faith by men apart from divine intervention.

The LORD looked down from heaven on the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no, not one. - Psa. 14:2-3

This is not merely the view of David but it is quoted by Paul as his view of all mankind both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9-11). So the Bible repudiates the idea of foreseen faith originating from man.

Jesus states very clearly that all which the Father has given to the son will come to him by faith (Jn. 6:37-39) and this act of giving occurred prior to the incarnation (Jn. 6:38-39). If any man could come to Christ by faith apart from being given by the Father then the act of being given by the father to come to Christ is rendered unnecessary. Hence, this divine intervention by God is necessary for anyone to come to Christ by faith since "all" given equals all coming to Christ in faith. Thus, all not given to the Son do not come to Christ in faith (Jn. 3:36; 64-65). Hence, coming to Christ by faith requires personal divine intervention rather than mere foresight of a future event.

Jesus states quite clearly that "no man can come to me except it were given him of my Father" (Jn. 6:65). If any man could come to the Son by faith then it would not have to be given to anyone by the Father, thus making the drawing action by God invalid since all could equally come to Christ by faith. However, if none can come to Christ by faith "except it is given to him by the Father" then mere foresight of saving faith is false.

However,advocates for foreseen faith argue that God gives all men without exception the ability to believe and He merely foresees who will and will not exercise that ability and only foreseen believers are chosen in him before the foundation of the world. Hence, the doctrine of foreseen faith denies that God is the author of faith but only the author of the ability which has potential for faith whereas the human will is the author of faith. However, that idea is not compatible with John 6;37-39 or John 6:44-45, 64-65. If ability to believe was given to all men without exception then why would God give anyone to come to Christ (Jn. 6:37-39) since all are given ability to come to Christ? All that are given to come to Christ in John 6:37-39 NONE FAIL to come as Christ says that "of all" which the Father gave to him he shall "lose nothing." If all were given ability to come to Christ by faith then why does Christ deny that such ability was "given" (Jn. 6:65) to those false believers in John 6:64? If "all" are given the ability to come to Christ by faith then why does Christ only quote prophesies that restrict "all" to new covenant children in John 6:45 (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-13)?? If all are given the ability to come to Christ then why does Christ say of some they "could not believe" in him (Jn. 12:39)? If all are given the ability to come to Christ then why does Paul say that "some men have not faith" (2 Thes. 3:2)?

Finally, the very text in question (Eph. 1:4) does not state that God before the foundation of the world chose a type of salvation but chose "us" in a PRE-FAITH' condition as we were not yet born. Paul says he set his love upon us while we were yet sinners in unbelief (Rom. 5:8-9). Moreover,the stated objective for this choice before the world began was that "we should be holy and without blame before him in love" not due to some kind of foreseen action that set us apart from others. The meaning of "holy" is "set apart." The objective of election before time was to secure salvation in time and thus "we" were "chosen to salvation" that was inclusive of faith. Therefore, election before time was not determined by foreseen setting apart by faith, but the objective of election before time was to set us apart to salvation inclusive of faith in time (2 Thes. 2:13 "to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth").

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

Election is as personal as the problem of sin is personal. The solution is as personal as the problem is personal. If election to salvation is corporate and not personal then so is redemptive love, forgiveness of sins and eternal security.

Elect in the Son would be the standard corporate election text...

 

[Iconoclast]

Elect in the Son would be the standard corporate election text...

This post makes no sense, What verse are you speaking about?

 

[Iconoclast]

Thomas R. Schreiner Refuting the Idea of Election (and Predestination) as Corporate as Opposed to Individual
Those who champion corporate election, however, would object, and I think the reason is that they do not really hold to corporate election of a group or of people at all. When those who advocate corporate election say that God chose “the Church,” “a group,” or a “corporate entity,” they are not really saying that God chose any individuals that comprise a group at all.32 The words “Church” and “group” are really an abstract entity or a concept that God chose. Those who become part of that entity are those who exercise faith. God simply chose that there be a “thing” called the Church, and then he decided that all who would put their faith in Christ would become part of the Church. In other words, the choosing of a people or a group does not mean that God chose one group of people rather than another, according to those who support corporate election. God chose to permit the existence of the entity called “the Church,” which corporate whole would be populated by those who put their faith in Christ and so become part of that entity.

If corporate election involves the selection of an abstract entity like the Church, and then people decide whether or not to exercise faith and thereby become part of the Church, it seems to follow that the selection of the Church does not involve the selection of any individuals or group at all. Instead God determined before time that there would be a “thing” called the Church and that those who exercise faith would be part of it. The problem with this view, however, is that the Church is not an abstract entity or a concept. It is comprised of people. Indeed the Biblical text makes it clear again and again that election involves the selection of people, not of a concept. For example: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); “God chose the foolish … and God chose the weak … and God chose the base and despised” (1 Cor 1:27–28); “God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation” (2 Thess 2:13; cf. also Rom 9:23–25; 11:2; 2 Tim 1:9). The point I am trying to make is that those who advocate corporate election do not stress adequately enough that God chose a corporate group of people, and if he chose one group of people (and not just a concept or an abstract entity) rather than another group, then (as we saw above) the corporate view of election does not make God any less arbitrary than the view of those who say God chose certain individuals.

An analogy may help here. Suppose you say, “I am going to choose to buy a professional baseball team.” This makes sense if you then buy the Minnesota Twins or the Los Angeles Dodgers. But if you do this, you choose the members of that specific team over other individual players on other teams. It makes no sense to say “I am going to buy a professional baseball team” that has no members, no players, and then permit whoever desires to come to play on the team. In the latter case you have not chosen a team. You have chosen that there be a team, the makeup of which is totally out of your control. So to choose a team requires that you choose one team among others along with the individuals who make it up. To choose that there be a team entails no choosing of one group over another but only that a group may form into a team if they want to. The point of the analogy is that if there really is such a thing as the choosing of a specific group, then individual election is entailed in corporate election.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thomas R. Schreiner Refuting the Idea of Election (and Predestination) as Corporate as Opposed to Individual
Those who champion corporate election, however, would object, and I think the reason is that they do not really hold to corporate election of a group or of people at all. When those who advocate corporate election say that God chose “the Church,” “a group,” or a “corporate entity,” they are not really saying that God chose any individuals that comprise a group at all.32 The words “Church” and “group” are really an abstract entity or a concept that God chose. Those who become part of that entity are those who exercise faith. God simply chose that there be a “thing” called the Church, and then he decided that all who would put their faith in Christ would become part of the Church. In other words, the choosing of a people or a group does not mean that God chose one group of people rather than another, according to those who support corporate election. God chose to permit the existence of the entity called “the Church,” which corporate whole would be populated by those who put their faith in Christ and so become part of that entity.

If corporate election involves the selection of an abstract entity like the Church, and then people decide whether or not to exercise faith and thereby become part of the Church, it seems to follow that the selection of the Church does not involve the selection of any individuals or group at all. Instead God determined before time that there would be a “thing” called the Church and that those who exercise faith would be part of it. The problem with this view, however, is that the Church is not an abstract entity or a concept. It is comprised of people. Indeed the Biblical text makes it clear again and again that election involves the selection of people, not of a concept. For example: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); “God chose the foolish … and God chose the weak … and God chose the base and despised” (1 Cor 1:27–28); “God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation” (2 Thess 2:13; cf. also Rom 9:23–25; 11:2; 2 Tim 1:9). The point I am trying to make is that those who advocate corporate election do not stress adequately enough that God chose a corporate group of people, and if he chose one group of people (and not just a concept or an abstract entity) rather than another group, then (as we saw above) the corporate view of election does not make God any less arbitrary than the view of those who say God chose certain individuals.

An analogy may help here. Suppose you say, “I am going to choose to buy a professional baseball team.” This makes sense if you then buy the Minnesota Twins or the Los Angeles Dodgers. But if you do this, you choose the members of that specific team over other individual players on other teams. It makes no sense to say “I am going to buy a professional baseball team” that has no members, no players, and then permit whoever desires to come to play on the team. In the latter case you have not chosen a team. You have chosen that there be a team, the makeup of which is totally out of your control. So to choose a team requires that you choose one team among others along with the individuals who make it up. To choose that there be a team entails no choosing of one group over another but only that a group may form into a team if they want to. The point of the analogy is that if there really is such a thing as the choosing of a specific group, then individual election is entailed in corporate election.

What text are you referring to which uses the term "church" as being chosen "in Christ"?

 

[Iconoclast]

What text are you referring to which uses the term "church" as being chosen "in Christ"?

I have heard Leighton Flowers aka.{Skandelon] attempt to use eph 1 in reference to the Church.
I have heard it in sermons where theperson trying to deny individual election will say, The Church is like a train...God elects "the train" but you have to put yourself on it.

 

[Yeshua1]

This post makes no sense, What verse are you speaking about?

That was the name of the book that was required reading at the bible school, as it was the primer on Corporate election, as per Arminian viewpoint !

 

[Yeshua1]

I have heard Leighton Flowers aka.{Skandelon] attempt to use eph 1 in reference to the Church.
I have heard it in sermons where theperson trying to deny individual election will say, The Church is like a train...God elects "the train" but you have to put yourself on it.

They will say that God elected to save sinners in the church, or in Christ, but up to us to agree with Him and climb aboard!

 

[The Biblicist]

They will say that God elected to save sinners in the church, or in Christ, but up to us to agree with Him and climb aboard!

The problem with that kind of thinking with regard to Ephesians 1:4 is that the text repudiates that very idea. The time of choosing is BEFORE TIME (before the foundation of the world) while the objective for that choosing is IN TIME (that we should be holy) which is being set apart to "belief of the truth"/faith

Second, the term "holy' means to be set apart. Hence, the objective of PRE-TIME election is that IN TIME we should be set apart unto him. IN TIME, the initial setting apart is by the Holy Spirit and belief of the truth as both happen IN TIME:

But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brothers beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:- 2 Thes. 2:13

So, the very objective of election BEFORE TIME is to set apart the elect unto "belief in the truth" IN TIME. Hence, election is the cause BEFORE TIME whereas "belief in the truth" is the consequence IN TIME. Arminians reverse this Biblical order.

So, a proper interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 repudiates both corporate election and foreseen faith.

It repudiates corporate election because the object of election is not a type of salvation but "us" and the "us" is a PRE-FAITH "us" BEFORE TIME and thus BEFORE being set apart unto "belief of the truth."

 

[Yeshua1]

Very good points, and think that many come to their belief regarding election based upon not just what the scriptures say on it, but what also seems right and reasonable to them.