User:ClassArm/Corporate election

Wikipedia (Edited Corporate Election)

There appears to be three primary perspectives on apostasy in church history: Classical or Reformed Calvinism, Moderate Calvinism, and Reformed Arminianism.

Implications
Michael Fink writes:

Apostasy is certainly a biblical concept, but the implications of the teaching have been hotly debated. The debate has centered on the issue of apostasy and salvation. Based on the concept of Gods sovereign grace, some hold that, though true believers may stray, they will never totally fall away. Others affirm that any who fall away were never really saved. Though they may have "believed" for a while, they never experienced regeneration. Still others argue that the biblical warnings against apostasy are real and that believers maintain the freedom, at least potentially, to reject God's salvation.

McKnight says that "apostasy ought not to be used as a continual threat so much as an occasional warning of the disaster that Christians may bring upon themselves if they do not examine themselves. As a warning, apostasy can function as a moral injunction that strengthens commitment to holiness as well as the need to turn in complete trust to God in Christ through his Spirit." Some argue that the desire for salvation shows one does not have "an evil, unbelieving heart." As Fink puts it, "persons worried about apostasy should recognize that conviction of sin in itself is evidence that one has not fallen away."

In Christian, non-traditional Arminian soteriology, corporate election "refers to God choosing in Christ a people whom he destines to be holy and blameless in his sight." Put another way, "Election is the corporate choice of the church 'in Christ.'" William Klein says, "The central idea in the election of the church may be seen from Ephesians 1:4": "For he [God] chose us [the Church] in him [Christ], before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." Klein explains, Here Paul states that God chose Christians in Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. The "chosen ones" designate the corporate group to whom Paul writes with himself (and presumably all Christians) included: God chose us. The focus is not on the selection of individuals, but the group of those chosen. As Westcott notes, "He chose us (i.e. Christians as a body, v. 3) for Himself out of the world." Paul specifies the timing of this choice—it was pretemporal, before the world was created. God made the choice "in him" (that is, "in Christ"). In other words, Christ is the principal elected one, and God has chosen a corporate body to be included in him."

It is explicitly Christocentric
Election is first and foremost centered in Christ: "He chose us in him" (Ephesians 1:4a). Christ himself is the elect of God. Regarding Christ, God states, "Here is my servant whom I have chosen" (Matthew 12:18; cf. Isaiah 42:1, 6). God audibly declared to Christ's disciples, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" (Luke 9:35) The Gospel writer John says, "I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One" (John 1:34, Today's New International Version). The apostle Peter refers to Christ as "the Living Stone . . . chosen by God and precious to Him" (1 Peter 2:4; cf. v. 6). Therefore Christ, as the elect of God, is the foundation of our election. "Only in union with Christ do we become members of the elect (Ephesians 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13)." "No one is among the elect apart from a living-faith union with Christ."

It is primarily corporate
New Testament theologian Ben Witherington remarks that apart from the word election (eklektos) occasionally being used to apply to the king in the Old Testament, the language of election in the Old Testament is applied corporately to a people, not to an individual. The word "elect" (bahir) is normally used in the plural, and so collectively of Israel. . . . There are also, of course, texts that speak of God choosing and anointing persons for specific historical purposes (e.g., Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1), but these are not soteriological [i.e., salvation] texts. In fact it must be stressed that texts which refer to Pharoah or Cyrus or someone else being chosen for some particular historical task, positive or negative, are really of no relevance to this discussion, because they are not about God picking those persons to be saved or to have eternal life. This is the general context in which one must view the references to election [in the New Testament].

Professor William Klein concluded that the New Testament writers "address salvific election in primarily, if not exclusively, corporate terms. In other words, God has chosen an elect body to save." The elect are indentified corporately as: "the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12; cf. 1:22-23; 2:16; 3:6; 5:23, 30), "members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19), "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" (1 Peter 2:9; cf. 2:10). Thus, election is primarily corporate and only embraces individuals (secondarily) who identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the church—God's new covenant community.

New Testament scholar Brian Abasciano says that the Bible's teaching regarding "corporate election unto salvation is even more nuanced than simply saying that the group is elected primarily and the individual secondarily." More precisely, it refers to the election of a group as a consequence of the choice of an individual who represents the group, the corporate head and representative. That is, the group is elected as a consequence of its identification with this corporate representative. The same may be said of individuals. They are chosen as a consequence of their identification with the people, and more fundamentally, with the individual corporate head. Thus,


 * God chose the people of Israel in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:6-8). That is, by choosing Jacob/Israel, the corporate/covenant representative, God also chose his descendants as his covenant people. . . . The covenant representative on the one hand and the people/nation of Israel on the other hand are the focus of the divine covenantal election, and individuals are elect only as members of the elect people. Moreover, in principle, foreign individuals who were not originally members of the elect people could join the chosen people and become part of the elect, demonstrating again that the locus of election was the covenant community and that individuals found their election through membership in the elect people.

This notion of election is rooted in the Old Testament concept of corporate solidarity or representation, which views the individual as representing the community and identified with it and vice versa.

It has an eternal purpose
God has chosen a people so that they "may declare the praises of him" who called them out of darkness and into his wonderful light (1 Peter 2:9). Furthermore, God has purposed in Christ that His people will "be holy and blameless before Him" (Ephesians 1:4). This purpose is repeatedly emphasized by Paul in Ephesians (see 2:21; 3:14-19; 4:1-3, 13-32; 5:1-18; cf. 1 Peter 1:2, 14-16). The fulfillment of this purpose for the church corporately is certain (Ephesians 5:27). But the fulfillment of this purpose for individuals in the church is conditional upon remaining in the Christian faith (Colossians 1:22-23).

It is offered to all people
Abasciano believes, "One of the wonderful theological advantages of corporate election is that it comports with the Bible's teaching that God loves all, calls all to believe and be saved, and genuinely desires all to be saved (e.g., John 3:16; Acts 17:30-31; 1 Timothy 2:4)." However, only those persons who repent of their sin and place their faith in Christ enter into a saving relationship with God and are "incorporated into Christ's elect body (the church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), thereby becoming one of the elect."

Historical perspectives on election
Historically, both Calvinists and Arminians have predominately understood election unto salvation as individual. That is, each individual is elected/selected to enter into a saving relationship with God through Christ. The central difference between the two views is that Calvinists see election as unconditional and Arminians see election as conditional on divine foreknowledge of human faith. While corporate election "is not quite the traditional Arminian position, it fully supports Arminian theology because it is a conditional election"—conditional upon union with Christ through faith. According to Abasciano, the corporate view of election "has come to command a great deal of scholarly support," and its popularity is likely due to the increased sensitivity of the scholarly community to "the Jewish matrix of early Christianity and the profound indebtedness to the Old Testament on the part of the New Testament authors."

The Old Testament concept of election is definately corporate.
James Daane wrote, "Divine election in its basic Old Testament form is collective, corporate, national. It encompasses a community of which the individual Israelite is an integral part." The dominant use of election terminology in the Old Testament applies to the people of Israel as a body or nation. The Old Testament writers repeatedly declare that God "has chosen Israel out of all the nations of the world to be his own people."

A variety of corporate terms are routinely applied to Israel by Old Testament writers.

Israel was the bride of Yahweh, selected and loved by God, though adulterous (Isaiah 54:1-8; Hosea 1–3; Isaiah 61:10; 62:4-5; Jeremiah 3:8; Ezekiel 16, where Jerusalem represents the nation, and Ezekiel 23). The term congregation of Israel expressed Israel's collective unity. The metaphor of Israel as the flock of Yahweh, its shepherd, occurs repeatedly (for example, Psalm 23; 78:52; 80:1; 95:7; 100:3; Jeremiah 13:17; 23:1; Hosea 4:16; Micah 7:14). . . . Old Testament writers often use the term house to portray Israel’s collective unity. They describe the Israelites collectively as the "house of Israel" or, sometimes, as the place where God dwells (e.g., Exodus 16:31; Leviticus 10:6; Ruth 4:11; 19:3; 1 Samuel 7:2-3; 2 Samuel 12:8; Isaiah 2:5; Jeremiah 2:4; 5:15). Of course, the term people itself, as a collective term for Israel, pervades the Old Testament. . . . (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:6; cf. 14:2; 21:8; 1 Samuel 2:24; 1 Kings 8:30, 33-34; Isaiah 43:20). Vine also occurs commonly as a concept embodying all the people (Psalm 80:8-16; Isaiah 5:2; Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekial 15; Hosea 10:1). . . . In summary, Old Testament writers conceived of Israel as a people, a corporate entity.

The explicit language of election unto salvation is always corporate in the New Testament.
Abiscano says "one will look in vain for an overt use of the language of election unto salvation in reference to an individual." Klein concluded, "Our study of the New Testament documents demands that we view election to salvation corporately. We found in the synoptics, John, Peter, James, and Paul evidence that God has chosen a people—a community." The apostle Paul calls believers in Rome "the elect ones of God" (Romans 8:33), and speaks of the Church as being chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:4) and of "your [plural] election" (1 Thessalonians 1:4), "but never with individual language. . . ." Klein says, "Plural language dominates election texts."

The first century Mediterranean culture and Judaism was corporate rather than individualistic in outlook
According to Abasciano, the corporate character of the New Testament first-century culture is firmly supported by the scholarly concensus. William Klein says, In his book The New Testament World, Bruce Malina argues persuasively that the first-century Mediterranean person did not share or comprehend our idea of an individual. Malina is convinced that instead of being individualistic, in the world of the New Testament, people were what he calls "dyadic." That is, they conceived of themselves in relation to others, not as separate entities. Thus they did not view people in terms of their specific qualities as individuals, but rather the qualities of their family, village, city, or nation. . . . Thus, though individualism dominates our [Western] thinking, it would have been very foreign to the world of the writers of the New Testament. They would approach the basic theological issues from a corporate frame of reference, which is precisely what we discovered in our analyses.

Gary Burnett describes the Jewish view well: Kaminsky. . . suggests that it is always the case [in the Hebrew Bible] that the "individual's very self-understanding was derived from his or her relationship to the community." It is the individual as a member of the community where the emphasis lies, not the individual as an "autonomous entity before God." . . . [S]alvation was both a matter for the individual and the community of the people of God. One would participate in the salvation which God had prepared for his people by living as part of the covenant people. . . . Only by deliberately sinning and refusing to repent could one become apostate and put oneself outside the covenant and therefore outside of salvation. The personal piety, we have noted, then, must be seen in the context of individuals seeking to live within the covenant, and in such a context, salvation was typically seen as concerning the nation (or the sectarian group within the nation), something in which an individual would participate, assuming he kept within covenantal boundaries. We see, then, within Judaism the importance of individual responsibility and active participation in the covenant relationship with God; this indicates clearly for us the interdependence of both the individual and the community. The individual was not subsumed within the larger group, but neither was he an autonomous agent. There was a much more balanced sense of both individual and community.

This means that the dominant perspective of the New Testament culture "was that the group was primary and the individual secondary. The individual, while important, was not thought of as standing on his own, but as embedded in the group of which he was a member. Personal identity was derived from the group rather than the group drawing its identity from the individuals contained in it." Thus, Judaism's and the Old Testaments corporate view of election, the exclusive use of corporate language in connection with election unto salvation, and the corporate orientation of the New Testament writers socio-historical context all combine to provide a very strong case for seeing election as primarily corporate.

Objections to corporate election
Despite the growing popularity of corporate election, this doctrine has been criticized by some who hold to individual election, "particularly Calvinists, whose position it directly contradicts." These criticisms appear to be misguided and based upon "misunderstandings of the biblical concept of corporate election."

Misunderstanding # 1: Corporate election excludes individuals
There are many scholars who are under the assumption that corporate election excludes individuals from election, and therefore, in order to counter the view, proceed to show how individuals are obviously elect and partakers of election's blessings if the group they belong to is elect. This assumption has been implicitly invalidated by the description of corporate election provided earlier in the article. Corporate election does not exclude individuals, it includes individuals, but only insofar as they are part of the group. That is, it includes individuals based on their participation in the group/identification with the corporate representative. Another way of saying this would be that the group is elected primarily and individuals secondarily. Corporate election begins with the individual corporate head and the group, and then moves to the individual. But it does arrive at the individual and allots a full and vigorous role to him in the context of community. It is true that corporate election does not refer to the election of each individual separately from Christ or the group, but this does not in any way nullify the election of each individual member of the group as a result of the group's election. It is also true that corporate election does not refer to the choice of anyone to join the elect people. The concept of covenantal election or election unto eternal salvation simply does not apply to entrance into the elect people. It actually refers to a people being chosen to belong to God, to receive the benefits of his covenant promises (ideally), and to live according to his covenant commands (Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:20; 7:6-9; 14:2; Psalm 135:4; Ephesians 1:4ff.; 1 Peter 2:9-10). All of this applies to each individual in the New Covenant as a consequence of membership in the elect people, and more profoundly, of being in Christ by faith, which is what makes someone a part of God's people.

Misunderstanding # 2: Corporate election is not the election of people, but merely the election of an empty set
This misunderstanding flows naturally out of the first and is simply not true for the following reasons: God first chooses the corporate head/representative so that there is never an empty set. Indeed, the corporate head is the foundation of the group and embodies the group in himself. To put it bluntly and in a way that undoubtedly rubs against individualistic sensibilities, the corporate head is the group, in accordance with the biblical principle of corporate solidarity. As 1 Corinthians 12:12 puts it in relation to Christ, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though being many, are one body, so also is Christ." Christ is both an individual and corporate figure. The group is chosen because of its association with him and because it shares in his election. His election extends to all those who are associated with him because they are in him. With the corporate head as the locus of election, there is never a time that the elect people is an empty set. Another reason to reject that corporate election is an election of an empty set is seen in the election of a corporate representative in the Old Testament. For God's Old Testament people were chosen in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. Jacob was chosen in the womb, and at the very same time his descendants were chosen; they were chosen in him. "And the Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb. And two peoples from your belly will be divided. And one people will be stronger than the other people. And the older will serve the younger' (Genesis 25:23). Notice how Jacob is wholly identified with his people before they exist. His election is their election; his destiny is their destiny. Indeed, they will be called by his personal name, whether Jacob or Israel. Both are designations for the nation of Israel in the Old Testament. Was Israel an empty set when Jacob was chosen? One might argue so. But then that would prove too much. It would constitute an argument against the concept of the election of God's people found in the Old Testament as somehow not really the election of people. For Israel was chosen in Jacob. That is, the people Israel was chosen as a consequence of the man Israel's election. When he was chosen, they were chosen. As Gen. 25:23 indicates, it could be said that the nation was in Rebekah's womb because Jacob was. And as Malachi 1:2-3 affirms, God loved/chose the people Israel by loving/choosing Jacob. . . . Thus, while it might be the tendency of people with an individualistic viewpoint to regard "the people of God as a nullity when only the corporate representative of the people is actually in the covenant, it is not the biblical view." It is also unlikely that such a view would "be taken in a collectivist culture such as the ones in which the Old and New Testaments were written, which viewed the group as primary and the individual as secondary. The individualistic viewpoint does not account for the principle of corporate solidarity that is so at home in the Bible and collectivist thought. In biblical thought, the corporate representative would be seen as embodying the people he represents from the beginning of his representative role, which is to say from the beginning of his election." If there is never an empty set in the Old Testament's corporate election of Israel in their chosen corporate representative, then this would likewise be true of "the church's election before the foundation of the world because that election was in Christ, consequent on his election, which is foundational to the election of his people in his capacity as their corporate representative (Ephesians 1:4)."

Corporate election as it relates to predestination
"Predestination (Greek: prooizo) means 'to decide beforehand' and applies to God's purposes comprehended in election. Election is God's choice 'in Christ' of a people (the true church) for himself. Predestination comprehends what will happen to God's people (all genuine believers in Christ)." Predestination is "a characteristically Pauline word," used by him "in five of its six occurrences in the New Testament." For Paul, predestination has emphasis "on Christians corporately and on the ultimate goals God has prepared for those who are his own." "Paul's concern in predestination is not how people become Christians nor who become Christians, but to describe what God has foreordained on behalf of those who are (or will be) Christians. No one is predestined to be a Christian, but rather, as Christians (collectively) we have a glorious future destiny awaiting us. God has predestined his elect ones "to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29); to "adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself" (Ephesians 1:5); and to "bring praise to His glory" (Ephesians 1:11-12). Like election, predestination refers to the corporate body of Christ and "comprehends individuals only in association with that body through a living faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:5, 7, 13; cf. Acts 2:38-41; 16:31)."

Analogy for corporate election and predestination
The relationship of corporate election and predestination might be compared to a great ship on its way to heaven. Christ is the elect Captain and Pilot of this elect ship. God desires that everyone would come aboard this ship and has graciously made provisions for them to do so through its Captain. Only those who are willing to place their trust in the Captain of the ship can come on board. As long as they remain on the ship, through a living faith in the ship's Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and its Captain through unbelief, they cease to be among the elect. Election is experienced only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship's future and final destination that God has prepared for those remaining on it. God, out of his immense love, invites everyone to come aboard the ship through faith in the ship's Captain, Jesus Christ.

Corporate election as it relates to perseverance and apostasy
Ben Witherington notes, The concept of election is of course intertwined with the concepts of predestination and perseverance. Put another way, how one views election will affect, if not determine, how one views perseverance of the saints. If one thinks that God before the foundation of the world chose some individuals to be saved, come what may, then of course one has to believe that apostasy is impossible for a real Christian person, someone who is truly elect. . . . Frankly there are just too many warnings in the New Testament that Christians can and do fall prey to temptation, can make shipwreck of their faith, can grieve or quench the Holy Spirit in their lives, and can even commit apostasy or the unforgivable sin. If this can happen to genuine Christians, those whom God has called and given the Holy Spirit to, and destined or intended in advance for them to be conformed to the image of the Son, then frankly something is wrong with the Reformed concept of election. . . . Election for Paul is a corporate thing. It was in ethnic Israel; it is now "in Christ." From Paul's viewpoint, which is simply an adaptation of view found in early Judaism, "election" does not guarantee the final salvation of individual Christian converts any more than it guaranteed the final salvation of individual Israelites in the past. . . . Just as apostasy was and could be committed by individual Israelites, whom God then broke off from the people of God, at least temporarily (see Romans 11:11-24), so there was also the same danger for individual Christians, hence all the warnings about falling away. . ..

Robert Shank argued, The certainty of election and perseverance is with respect, not to particular individual men unconditionally, but rather with respect to the ekklēsia [the church], the corporate body of all who, through living faith, are in union with Christ, the true Elect and the Living Covenant between God and all who trust in His righteous Servant (Isaiah 42:1-7; 49:1-12; 52:13–53:12; 61:1, 2).

To assume that final salvation with God is inevitable "for every one who once experiences saving grace is to ignore the explicit warnings, not only elsewhere in the Scriptures, but in the very passage before us."

B.J. Oropeza argues in a similar manner but from different passages. Based on his understanding of what Paul is communicating to his readers in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 9-11, Oropeza questions whether the assumption that unconditional election to final perseverance is a guarantee for the individual Christian (as supposed by some in Romans 8:28-39). Since Paul in Romans 9-11 seems to consider both Israel and the Christians as corporately elect, this may help one interpret Paul's perspective of election when final perseverance is in view in the letter. . . . Our perspective supports that when election with the goal of final perseverance is in view, Paul seems to be speaking of communities rather than individuals. Namely, the predestination and election of Christians in Romans 8:29-30 may rest on Paul's assumption that election to final perseverance refers to the election of a community rather than individuals as such. Paul stresses the use of the plural and collective terms such as "those," "many," and so forth to refer to the Christians in 8:28-39. Like the Christian community, Israel itself is called, elect, and beloved of God (Romans 11:28-29; cf. 11:2), yet many in Israel fell away so that in the present age, they do not participate in the salvific experience. Israel's corporate election is clearly in view when Paul claims that all Israel will be saved in the "not yet" future (Rom. 11:26). Nevertheless, in the "now" eschaton, Romans 11 (and 1 Corinthians 10) suggests that individuals and subgroups who are part of the elect community (whether Jews or Gentiles) may apostatize and be cut off from salvation (cf. Romans 11:22).

Oropeza goes on to add that If Paul is speaking about the assurance of election to final perseverance in Romans 8:28-39, then this promise. . . would seem to be affixed to a community rather than individuals per se. First, as in 1 Corinthians 10, the Deuteronomic tradition is clearly evident in the background from Paul's argument in Romans, especially in chapters 9-11. In this tradition, Paul seems to adopt a corporate view of election (cf. Deuteronomy 7:6ff) while at the same time affirming that apostasy can happen to individuals and sub-groups (cf. Deuteronomy 13:1ff; 29:18-20). . . . In Romans it is evident that if a believer lives after the flesh or does not continue in Christ, he or she may become eternally separated from God (Rom. 8:12-13 cf. 11:22; 14:13, 15, 23). But in 8:28-39 Paul does not contemplate whether personal sin or unbelief could finally disrupt a Christian’s salvific relationship with God. Hence, the promise of any final perseverance in this passage does not necessarily apply to Christians who follow their sinful nature. In other words, Paul in 8:28-39 may indeed affirm that the collective community of God is foreknown, predestined and elect in the eternal plan of God and will persevere to final glorification. This would be a great comfort to Paul's readers when he mentions the various trials that the Christians in Rome my face. The readers, as individuals, could take comfort in the promises of this passage, but only as they are identified as members of the Christian community. The passage centers on the Christian community as elect, not the Christian individual. A person who is not part of this community has no claim to its promises. Oropeza concludes that Paul's use of terms related to predestination and election in Romans 8:28-39 give no necessary indication that genuinely elect individuals cannot finally apostatize. It seems that Paul believes that God can choose, foreknow, and predestine an elect people to final perseverance even though individual members can fall away (cf. Romans 11). Some elect my fall away, perhaps even most, but never all. Paul's thought here is consistent with many ancient Israelite traditions which portray the reality of individual and sub-group apostasies within the elect community while at the same time maintaining the continuity of that community as a whole. In every episode of Israel's tradition history, a faithful remnant survives after apostasy and judgment/expulsion occur (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:23-31). Paul habitually cites or echoes the Jewish traditions for authoritative support of his arguments, and for him, there is an analogy between Israel and Christians in relation to election (Romans 11; 1 Corinthians 10). It seems implausible that he would have divorced himself so completely from the presuppositions of his Jewish heritage that he now teaches that individuals which make up the elect body are each unconditionally preserved so as to never be able to completely fall away.