Election: Individual or Corporate?
logging buddy Brad over at Broken Messenger has been doing some defense of Reformed Theology. Brad is a great guy to have discussions with because he understands disagreement without having to label his dissenters as heretics. So, I feel safe at Brad’s blog!
Recently, a commenter named Todd Dombrow commented about the Reformed belief of election. For those of you who are not quite familiar with that term, Reformed Theology teaches, based on various Scriptural mentions of election and foreknowledge, etc., that before creation even began, God ordained everything that would happen, including the fall of mankind into sin, the sacrifice of Jesus as the atonement for that sin, and the salvation of a subset of human beings through God-provided faith in Jesus. The ones who are foreordained by God to believe are called “the elect”, and they are the only ones for whom Jesus died (the Reformed belief called “Limited Atonement”), and the only ones who can ever be saved.
The discussion (found here) started with a comment by another commenter, Dustin, about how the Reformed understanding of election and foreordaining assumes that God is operating within time, and therefore is faulty. (I’m paraphrasing heavily here, so I hope I don’t misrepresent anyone’s views.) And this is where Todd’s comment comes into play. Todd wrote:
So is God’s predestinating work contingent upon those who will believe? This was indeed what the remonstrants believed to be true which was a repudiation of Calvin’s theology and support of Arminius. If you said this faith came from God then I’d say Amen. But if you say that faith in Christ is that which God views as the determinating condition for His electing purposes then I’d say I’m not sure that the bible supports such a position. See Ephesians 1 in particular for a clear picture.
This caused me to do some more thinking about the concept of election. Ironically, Brad and I had already agreed to work through some passages (which I intend to do, using this post as an intro to the topic) which he claims are only taken “at face value” by Reformed Theology (which I shall abbreviate now as RT). One of the passages that Brad brought up was a portion of Ephesians 1, to which Todd refers in his comment that I quoted above.
I’ll interject at this point that I struggle with RT and its teaching. This probably comes as no surprise to most of my readers, but I want to be open and honest here. I’m engaging some of this from a dissenting position. It’s not that I think all of RT is wrong. I certainly applaud certain elements of RT, namely:
- A desire to elevate God above all else and maintain a high view of His sovereignty.
- An attempt to read Scripture at “face value”
- A desire to attribute salvation completely to the work of God
- Among other things, I’m sure, that slip my mind at the moment
I’m personally not sure that RT actually succeeds at these desires and attempts, but I do applaud the desires I see in what I read from RT writers. I will leave the discussion of the success or failure of these for later posts as I engage the Scriptures Brad has pointed out. I will say, however, that I think RT starts with Scripture, but then possibly goes too far in its conclusions and propositions (what I often refer to here on this blog as “derived doctrine”). They call it “biblical theology” because they think starting with the Scriptures guarantees a biblical conclusion. But I think that may be somewhat wishful thinking at times.
Anyway…back to the topic at hand. As I thought more about the election/predestination concept, I realized that it would be foolish to disregard the concept altogether. After all, it is a biblical term! 
For example, Ephesians 1:4-5 says that “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…[and] He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself….” Sounds pretty clear, right? Todd called it a “clear picture”. And so, RT claims to read this passage at “face value”, taking the “plain” meaning.
However, I would like to put forth another possibility and see if anyone has any thoughts in reply. The RT understanding of election is, from what I can tell, an individualistic concept. In other words, God elected each and every person who will be saved. In my response to Todd, I wrote:
Is it possible that the election (and Paul’s mention of it) is a corporate election — i.e., God chose a people, just like He did when He chose Israel as a people. Israelites were part of the people of God by nature of being born into that family. And foreigners could choose to join that group, collectively known as “the people of God”, thereby becoming part of “the chosen” by their own choice.
Now, this was a rather off-the-cuff comment that I’d like to flesh out a bit here. To do so, let’s look at some more from Ephesians 1. Specifically, I’d like to look at a fuller portion of Ephesian 1:4: “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him….” When I read this, that phrase “holy and blameless” jumped out at me. It sounded familiar. Sure enough, I found what I was looking for in Ephesians 5. Specifically, Ephesians 5:25-27 where Paul talks about husbands loving their wives:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
I’ve bolded the words at the end of that passage because I think it sheds some light on what Paul is talking about in chapter 1. It seems that Paul is talking about the body of Christ as a whole, not merely individual human beings. He refers to the bride of Christ as a corporate body in the singular. He doesn’t say “that He might present to Himself all of the members of the church in all their glory”, but rather “the church in all her glory”. And the use of the phrase “holy and blameless” in both chapters seems to me to show a correlation.
So, in chapter 1, when Paul says “us”, does he mean “each of us individually”? Or does he mean “us” as a corporate unity? I think that it’s quite possible that this has a bearing on how we interpret the meaning of “election” and “predestined”. In other words, I think that is possible to maintain the “election” of the body as a whole, while not extrapolating that, of necessity, to refer to each individual person.
In my comment to Todd, I referenced the nation of Israel. In Romans 11, Paul references the nation of Israel as God’s people “whom He foreknew” (verse 2). So we see a parallel in the fact that God “foreknew” Israel and also “foreknew” the Church. And to that end, I look at Israel as an illustration. In the Old Testament, God references “the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord” (Isaiah 56) and shows that they receive the same benefits as a natural-born Israelite.
Additionally, in Ezekiel 44:9, God says, “No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the sons of Israel, shall enter My sanctuary.” I think it’s understandable from this that a foreigner who was circumcised (both in heart and flesh) was treated as part of the nation of Israel and allowed to enter the sanctuary.
To me, this parallel shows the balance between election of an entire body (as a corporate entity) and individual choice to join with that body and become part of it. But, I’ll close by quoting my closing comment to Todd and open it up for discussion here:
- Have I erred terribly in my summary above, and if not,
- What are the implications in our consideration of the doctrine of election?
Until next time,
steve
November 29th, 2006 01:08
steve, i like this “corporate” concept. best angle on this i’ve ever seen, worth thinking about and following up on.
of course, it is still an interpretation. but so is all reformed theology, arminian theology, and all other theology. i believe the Bible to be inerrant in the original manuscripts, divinely inspired, and infallible in what it says. but we always have to keep a distinction in our minds between the words of scripture, and the interpretations people make of them. interpretations are not divinely inspired on the same level as scripture, are not infalllible or inerrant. the vast majority of fights among christians are over interpretations, not over scripture itself. to me, ALL interpretations must be regarded as somewhat provisional, even if 500 or 1000 years old, because the final authority on this is God Himself. there are times when one passage throws light on another, which is what you’ve done here in ephesians, and that is a valid and useful approach. but we still have to keep enough of an open mind to let God have the final say.
i used to own a little book called “a funny thing happened on the way to heaven”–a humorous and somewhat fictional look at life in one wing of the religious heritage i grew up in. one incident in the book concerned the time that one of the “big men in the brotherhood” was preaching a series of meetings against the premillenials, and “smiting them hip and thigh” and a few folks went to one of the grand old men of the brotherhood and asked his opinion. “well, charley doesn’t believe jesus is going to come back and reign for a thousand years, and i don’t believe jesus is going to come back and reign for a thousand years. the difference between me and charley is, if jesus does decide to come back and reign for a thousand years, i’ll let him.”
RT or Arminian, pre-trib or post-trib rapture or no rapture, premillenial, post-, or amillenial or any other item christians argue over, eventually He will do it HIS way–and i’ll let Him.
philh
November 29th, 2006 08:42
phil, thanks for your feedback. I completely agree with your take on interpretation. Handling our interpretations with humility is absolutely essential, lest we end up priding ourselves on our own interpretations.
God will be God!
steve
November 29th, 2006 11:32
Steve,
At first blush this corporate view of election sounds like “grasping at straws” to most people.
But this is just because the RT people have been so good at defining “election” in the popular mind.
This is one of the most powerful propaganda tools they have. “See, it says election right there.”
But the whole Bible is written from a corporate perspective. Our idea of the “individual” did not even exist in the mind of Paul, let alone Moses.
Extensive studies have been done on this. Some say that Augustine invented the modern individual. Others say that Shakespeare did.
All of that aside, the book of Romans uses the term “election” entirely in the corporate sense. Paul’s point is that God had chosen those who belonged to the tribes of Israel. They were his elect. But now he has elected a new people, those who by faith trust in Christ.
Greg Boyd has written extensively about this.
RT requires indoctrination. If you could wipe your memory of all RT teaching, you would never come up with this view by reading the Bible carefully. That is unless you were trained as a lawyer living in the 16th century.
Rod
November 29th, 2006 11:34
Postscript:
I deeply appreciate Brad’s attitude and humility. I wish more people were like him. You’re in that same group.
Rod
November 29th, 2006 11:51
Rod, thank you for your kind words, and for stopping by here and commenting.
I knew you would like the “corporate” idea in my comments at Brad’s and here in this post, having seen that concept in your writing, too. However, I am curious (and maybe this is a topic for another post), is there any individual relationship in Scripture? What is individual and what is corporate? Or is everything corporate? I’m not sure where to draw the line.
Anyway, thank you for your interaction here. I happen to think you’re a pretty good part of the blogosphere myself!
steve
November 29th, 2006 16:29
Steve,
I just ran across a phrase in my reading this morning. I think it gets it right. The Bible talks a lot about personal faith but never about individual faith.
God Bless,
Rod
November 30th, 2006 01:20
I should have said “salvation” instead of “faith.”
November 30th, 2006 08:44
Steve, I’m an ordained pca pastor (just south of you). In the past year I’ve blogged about this very idea and a corporate understanding of election (which finds expression in Barth, I believe) has become my primary way of understanding “the doctrine of election”. Because of my union w/ Christ, whatever can be said about him, can be said about me. Clearly Christ is God’s chosen one (Luke 9:35), and thus, in him, I am chosen.
The more I’ve thought about this view, the more difficult it is for me to think of it in the individualistic terms used by many in RT.
November 30th, 2006 09:10
franklin, Thank you for commenting! I didn’t think that this corporate idea would be anything new or novel (although I certainly didn’t realize that Barth had talked about it), so it’s nice to know that I wasn’t way out in left field.
One part of your comment really stuck out to me:
Because of my union w/ Christ, whatever can be said about him, can be said about me. Clearly Christ is God’s chosen one (Luke 9:35), and thus, in him, I am chosen.
This is such a profound truth, and one that I think is way more revolutionary to our understanding of our relationship with the Father than it appears. “My life is hidden now in Christ”.
Amen! Thanks again for stopping by. May God bless you.
steve
November 30th, 2006 18:04
You know it is a cheesy comment and one that oversimplifies the idea a little, but doesn’t a group include individuals?
You know the idea of a corprate election is good, because it emphasizes the community of believers, however, the emphasis on community is still found in an idea of ‘individual’ election.
November 30th, 2006 20:00
echindod,
I would argue that a community includes individuals but that individuals do not necessarily constitute a community.
Are people riding in a subway car a community? Not unless something happens to transform them from merely a collocation of individuals into a community with a common purpose or enemy.
I’m sure you realize that individual election and corporate election are two very different things with vastly different implications.
Rod
November 30th, 2006 20:53
Steve,
Thanks for the link, the topic is most interesting to me. I’d like to get back to the word foreknowledge as it is used in scripture. Foreknowledge in scripture does speak of individuals. Jesus was Foreknown by God in
1 Peter 1:20. Jesus was delivered up to be cruicified by evil men due to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God in Acts 2:23. How boubt how God knew David even as he was in the womb.
Also look at Romans 8:29-30. “For those who he foreknew he also predestined” So would you see this again as corporate and not individual. Foreknown as used here in scipture, is both personal and intimate. In fact the language is very similar to the way in which a husband knows his wife. While in one sense I agree with you that scripture speaks of the corporate election of the church. To talk of a group of people with regaurds to election means that he chose specific individuals who constituted that group. I understand where all of the corporate talk with regaurds to election and the foreknowledge of God is going, and why we might want to think of election in this way. But let me ask a question, since most of our problems with biblical election boils down to concerns about our free will. If the idea that God’s foreknowing or predestinating of some to believe is simply based on the foreknowledge of their faith; how does this fixed foreknowledge of God give man any real freedom at all?
November 30th, 2006 22:09
This is a great post, Steve, and I agree with you entirely. I have believed for some time now that election in the NT refers to the church and not to individuals. Every reference that I have studied seems to apply election as a post-salvation act. Or, (dare I say it?), we are elected because we selected.
Anyway, it is great to find one more thing upon which we agree, is it not?
December 1st, 2006 02:24
Steve,
I’ve just found your response. I’ve responded myself to it at my site, but the jist of it is is that election is not an either/or condition when it comes to the individual being apart of the corporate, but a both/and reality.
Brad
December 1st, 2006 02:27
It’s also late here (for me) and so that’s the gist of this apology for the obvious and for not thanking you for responding to one of my earlier citations.
Brad
December 1st, 2006 04:21
Steve,
I agree with what Brad has written as well as your post. But maybe not for the reasons that you are espousing. Brad’s post seems to be a very reasonable response, but maybe that is just me. I think my above post is somewhat confusing, really trying to tackle too much and quite inadequately I might add. But I’m sure from scripture that election is both corporate and individual as Brad has alluded too.
Todd
December 1st, 2006 11:14
Steve,
First, I apologize for taking so long to comment on your post, especially after I prodded you to post something. I should have known that you would have taken on a “light” subject like election.
I tend to shy away from systems. Now, don’t get me wrong. Systems can be good. I have learned much from Reformed Theology. Problems occur when we begin exegeting our systems instead of exegeting Scripture. Or we begin to defend our systems instead of defending the faith. Or we begin to separate based on systems.
That being said, on this point I would tend to agree with the both/and side. However, you asked some good questions. I want to spend more time examining the idea of election and predestination for both the “corporate” and “individual” aspects involved.
Again, thank you for driving me to Scripture.
- Alan
December 1st, 2006 20:47
I’ve never made the connection between Jesus being “foreknown” and God’s foreknowledge of us until I saw the verses to which Todd pointed us.
For an intriguing look at election that takes into account the Barthian corporate view, but in the end introduces Mary as a central figure in understanding the doctrine of election. Interesting reading…
http://www.westmont.edu/~work/articles/annunciation.html
December 2nd, 2006 08:45
Great discussion. Thanks for the topic, Steve.
Kudos for Gordon’s “dare say it”! I have never understood when Christian theology has attempted to explain away free will.
Similar discussions take place in secular circles. Sociology as a discipline states that humans have very little if any free will, with various descriptions of dynamics that lock us into our behaviors. (Anybody here routinely ride elvators with backs to the door and facing the other riders? Do you make a conscious decision to ride like everybody else facing the door?)
Jesus said anyone who sins is a slave to sin. Humans are controlled by very powerful forces out of their reach. There is an incredible grace in hearing the Holy Spirit’s conviction above those forces. However, remove the explanation of our free will acting to move us toward God in a repentence resposne, and the crucifixion’s meaning and efficacy begins to unravel as the love of God becomes something else.
If we had no choice in entering into what the Father has done through His Son, then loving God is not logically possible–allowing the literal use of love and logic in the same sentence. We must describe our behavior in other terms besides love if we had no free will in the matter. Oh yeah! That is what this discussion is all about. How do we describe our own behavior?
December 3rd, 2006 00:53
Forgive me all, for being so slow to respond to the comments here. The discussion has continued over on Brad’s blog, and I’ve tried to contribute there some, but feel bad that I haven’t been responding here on my own blog. So, here we go:
Todd, we’re dialoguing on Brad’s, but I do want to respond to something you said here:
Exactly! And who is the “wife” who is being foreknown? The church. Corporate. So, your explanation of foreknowledge actually supports the corporate position more than the individual!
Gordon, you wrote:
I wasn’t aware of this. Care to give some examples? I’ll have to ponder on this, because I haven’t thought of it so much in “post-salvation” terms. And yes, it’s always great to agree with you!
Alan, I’ll try to post something a bit more meaty for you later on!
You wrote:
To which I simply add “Right on!” This happens far too frequently, I’m afraid.
franklin, I haven’t made it all the way through that link you put up there, but very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.
ded, thanks for jumping in. We thoroughly enjoyed our time with you and Mrs. ded last night! You wrote:
This is a well-written thought. I think it demonstrates the imbalance that results in a definition of election that goes so far as to say that even our very response is dictated by God.
“We love him because he first loved us.” How can this be anything but a response of our hearts to the love He has shown?
Again, my apologies for the very sluggish responses on my end. I do appreciate the conversation very much, and each of the participants!
steve
December 3rd, 2006 14:06
We enjoyed it as well. Wish all the folks who post here could talk together in Expresso News, eh?
Don’t forget breakfast on the 10th.
December 3rd, 2006 21:15
ded, yes wouldn’t it be great if we could all sit down in person and talk???
Looking forward to breakfast next week!
December 4th, 2006 08:54
Steve,
I live very close to Chicago’s O’Hare airport. If you ever have a stopover let me know, and we’ll try to work out a meeting.
Rod
December 4th, 2006 09:06
Rod,
And likewise for you if you ever get to the mountains of North Carolina!
December 4th, 2006 10:11
Steve, what I mean is that election is applied to those who are saved. I have found that nearly every reference in the NT that discusses election is either addressed directly to the church, or is referring to the body of believers.
Hence the conclusion that one is in the elect because they are saved and not vice versa.
December 4th, 2006 10:20
Gordon, oooooh! I understand what you’re saying. And (dramatic pause to emphasize the shocking revelation…) I agree
hehe
December 7th, 2006 00:06
Steve,
Great post. I think that many of the failures of modern Evangelicalism can be traced directly to our flawed understanding of community. Our ecclesiology succumbed to the Enlightenment and modernism, and we later bought into social Darwinism. The modern American Church suffers for all those plagues upon it.
We just can’t get our eyes off our rugged individualism.
December 7th, 2006 07:25
DLE, thanks for the comment. I confess that I’m only recently seeing the dangers in individualism, and am starting to think differently about all of this. Thanks for your input on that.
steve
December 8th, 2006 12:12
What is the divide between “individualism” and being an individual? We can rightly identify indiviualism as a stumbling block, but I have seen groups strip people of individuality with damage to individual and corporate expression.
The problem, as I see it, is that “individualism” flies heavily on the wings of pride–exalting self as all important and the basis for all decison-making. This is very much a part of the cultural experience of being American. Individualism is considered an American value. If we identify that value as wrong, how do we know ourselves correctly as individuals?
We each wrestle with different issues bouncing around in our souls concerning the question, “Who am I?” We may have insignificant feelings as an individual leading to negativism and lack of self-worth; or conversely, sensing our profound individual worth, we expect far too much recognition from others. Maybe we swing back and forth between the two perceptions. Ironically, we dishonor God if we fail to acknowledge and develop our gifts, and we dishonor Him to ride along collecting the glory for these gifts with which He has naturally endowed us.
What orders the flipping of this two-sided coin in our souls?
At least in part, the answer must lie in connecting within our hearts to the humility that is Christ’s nature. When humble with Christ, we can look at the wonder of who we are as an individual and not be carried away with pride. Through His presence, we can get our hearts around what His purpose is for such wonder, the application of His plan–redeemed for good works of service.
Community clearly is the practical function.
Joined in love with and among others, we see and can accept our created wonder; we find a safe haven to admit our pitiful state as a result of the fall; and we find fulfillment by moving into useful application of our gifts through works of service bringing both meaning and blessing into our individual and corporate lives.
In the Great I Am, we find the answer to “Who am I?”
December 8th, 2006 12:15
First time reader here, but I wanted to add my quick 2 cents.
I’m of the opinion that every Christian doctrine ought to be rooted in the words of Christ. After all, everything in Acts, the epistles and in Revelation are built upon what Jesus taught the apostles as recorded for us in the Gospels, and while certain teachings may be expounded on further, the foundations are laid for us in Jesus’ words.
In John 6 we have two key verses, 37 and 44. And while 37 might seem corporate (”all that the Father gives Me…”), verse 44 clarifies and individualizes (”no ONE can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws HIM…”).
So, if all that the Father gives to Christ will be saved and risen up at the last day and only those who the Father individually draws (drags) to the Son will be saved, I am forced to believe that election is individual.
However, I could accept that the church is corporately elected, but I would be forced to conclude that so are each of its members. At the very least, no one can join under their own volition as they must be drawn by the Father and given a heart of flesh and faith. But then again, since no one can do anything to influence the Father’s decision regarding that (all gone astray, none seeking God, none doing good, etc.), it all comes back to His choice anyway.
December 8th, 2006 21:41
ded, I continue to think that you should be blogging yourself! Your comments are usually better than my posts, and I hate that they (your comments) get buried here in the comments section!
At any rate, I think you have done a good job of describing the difference between “individual” and “individualism”. It can seem like a tightrope walk at times. Overall, I think the western church has done too much to promote individualism, while at the same time destroying individual uniqueness.
Ahhh, what a paradox!
Rick, welcome to the blog. I’m not opposed to the “both/and” concept, but it sounds like you’re coming from a pretty standard Calvinistic perspective, in which case, you may find my writings here frustrating if you stick around!
Having said that, you are very welcome, and feel free to disagree with me anytime.
steve
December 9th, 2006 09:34
Barth - ironically, to me anway - slowly inches the Reformed folks closer to what Luther had seen in the Bible about election: that “all” means “all” and “world” means “world”, if you really want to stick with the plain meanings of words. Ephesians 1 shows that election, along with all other spiritual gifts, centers on Christ, not on us.
December 26th, 2006 16:47
William W. Klein wrote his doctoral thesis on corporate election. It is called “The New Chosen People, A Corporate View of Election” and it is available in paperback.
It is, to my knowledge, the most thorough, verse by verse exegesis on corporate election. Charles Ryrie, though a believer himeself in individual election, has stated that this book has been unanswered from the reformed/Calvanist view.
December 31st, 2006 15:41
Actually, I wrote my PhD dissertation on “Paul’s Election Vocabulary.” Convinced in this doctoral research that election to salvation was dominantly a corporate category for Paul, I expanded my research and published the book, THE NEW CHOSEN PEOPLE (originally Zondervan and now Wipf and Stock). It investigates how the rest of the NT uses election terms and categories (as well as the OT, Jews, intertestamental literature, and the rabbis). In a nutshell, in the OT and Jewish understanding, election was a corporate category: God chose the nation Israel, and one became a member of the chosen people through birth to a Jewish mother. Correspondingly, God chose the church in Christ, and one becomes a member of the “new chosen people” through the new birth. Individuals are chosen to tasks (e.g., kings, prophets, apostles–including Judas). The church is chosen for salvation, and one enters into that body through faith in Christ.
January 2nd, 2007 10:46
Kevin and William, thanks for your added thoughts on this, and welcome to my blog. I apologize for not responding, but I’ve been out of town, and am just now catching up on my blogging.
The book sounds very interesting, and I may have to see if I can locate a copy of it. I have no problem agreeing with William’s last sentence (”The church is chosen for salvation….”), which is basically the point I was trying to approach in this post.
steve
January 25th, 2007 01:23
[...] Steve Sensenig asks the $64,000 question: "Election: Individual or Corporate?" [...]
May 11th, 2007 19:39
I have appreciated your comments on the Corporate View of Election.
I have done about 1,000 hours of Biblical research on this issue.
You might find my studies of interest.
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/cve.php
This is only about half of what I have done.
I am writing a considerable expansion of this now.
It is not yet finished. It is being reviewed by a number of friends now.
July 2nd, 2008 13:32
Read a new article on the doctrine of election at:
http://www.youmustbesaved.com/preview_052.htm
See what you think.
God Bless!