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 everywhere in the New Testament? Yet the word κοινωνια 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 Rom 3:23 is a denial that individuals are sinners). I embrace corporate election as well as individual election. As Douglas Moo argues in his commentary on Romans (pp. 551-52),
… to call Rom. 9-11 the climax or center of the letter is going too far. Such an evaluation often arises from a desire to minimize the importance of the individual’s relationship to God in chaps. 1-8. But the individual’s standing before God is the center of Paul’s gospel.… Individual and corporate perspectives are intertwined in Paul.
Evidence for this can be seen in Romans 9 itself: the examples that Paul uses to show the meaning of election are individuals: Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau, etc. Yet, these very examples—these very individuals—also represent corporate groups. If only corporate election were true, Paul could not have written Romans 9 the way he did.
Third, going back to the conceptual-lexical equation for a moment: let’s look at the evidence.
Mark 13:20—“but for the sake of the elect whom he chose he has cut short those days.” If we take only a corporate view of election, this would mean “but for the sake of all humanity he has cut short those days.” That hardly makes any sense in the passage; further, election is doubly emphasized: the elect whom he chose. It would be hard to make any clearer the idea that election is of individuals.
Luke 6:13; John 6:70—Jesus chose twelve of his disciples out of a larger pool. True, he chose more than one; but this also was of particular individuals. Jesus named them individually, indicating that his choice of them was individual. This election was not toward salvation, as we see in John 6:70.[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.
Luke 9:35—“This is my Son, my Chosen One.” Certainly election of Christ is both individual and corporate: Christ as the elect of God (see also at John 1:34 the textual variant that is most likely original, and is the text reading of the NET Bible) is the vehicle through whom God effects his elective purposes today. That is, God chooses those who would be saved, but he also chooses the means of that salvation: it is in Christ (see also Eph 1:4).
John 15:16—“You did not choose me, but I chose you.” Again, we see that election is done by the initiative of God. Further, those who are chosen become what they are chosen for (in this case, apostles). A view of corporate election that allows a large pool of applicants to be “chosen” then permits a self-selection to narrow the candidates seems to ignore both God’s initiative and the efficacy of God’s choice: all those who are chosen become what they are chosen for.
John 15:19—“I chose you out of the world.” The same theme is repeated: election may have many individuals in view, but the initiative and efficacy belong to the Lord.
Acts 1:2—same idea as above.
Acts 1:24—This text reveals a choice of one individual as opposed to another. The apostles vote on which of two candidates they had put in the pool would fill Judas’ spot. But even their choice is dictated by the mandate of heaven: “Show us which one you have chosen.”
Acts 15:7—Peter notes that God had selected him to bring the good news to the Gentiles. Again, though this is not election to salvation, it is election that is initiated by God and effected by God (for, as you recall, Peter was quite resistant to the idea).
Thus, election is seen to be initiated by God and effected by God. Those who are chosen—whether individuals or groups—become what they are chosen for. Corporate election simply ignores this consistent biblical emphasis.
Fourth, when we look at the broader issue and involve words other than from the ἐκλέγ- — word-group, we see that the concept of God’s initiation and efficacy is very clear. For example, in Acts 13:48 we read that “as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed.” This is a group within the group that heard the message. The passive pluperfect periphrastic ἦσαν τεταγμένοι indicates both that the initiative belonged to someone else and that it had already been accomplished before they believed.
Fifth, this leads to the issue of election in relation to depravity. I would encourage you to again look at the essay I have posted on the bsf website called “My Understanding of the Biblical Doctrine of Election.” The basic point is that if we cannot take one step toward God (Rom 3:10-13), if we are unable to respond to anything outside the realm of sin (Eph 2:1), then if anyone is ever to get saved, God must take the initiative. This initiative cannot be simply corporate; he must initiate in the case of each individual. Eph 2:1-10 is explicitly about God’s initiation in the case of individual believers; this sets the stage for 2:11-22 in which corporate election is seen. But there can be no corporate election unless there is first individual election. Corporate election, at bottom, is a denial of total depravity. Or, to put it another way, if corporate election is true and if total depravity is true, then no one will ever get saved because no one will ever freely choose to be in Christ. Only by the gracious initiative of God does anyone ever choose Christ.
Sixth, corporate election offers no assurance of anything to the individual. If election is corporate only, then the promises given to the elect are only given to them corporately. This would mean that we cannot claim individual promises about our salvation. This would include the promise of eternal security. Paul writes, “who will bring any charge against God’s elect?” (Rom 8:33)—an allusion to the election of the Son (Isa 50:8). This allusion suggests that God looks on us as he looks on his own Son. But if we read this as saying that only groups are chosen, then the charge that is brought against the elect must be a corporate charge. How does that offer any comfort to the individual? To be consistent with a corporate-only view, when Paul says, “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?”(Rom 8:35), we would have to read that corporately. It would not be a promise to individuals (and it is interesting that Paul says “us” not “me” in vv. 35-39; his lone reference to himself is in the line “I am convinced” [v 38]). If election is only corporate, then eternal security is only offered on a corporate plane. No personal assurance can take place. The irony is that those who hold to corporate election often also hold to eternal security. They don’t realize the extreme inconsistency in their views. You can’t have it both ways: either we are individually chosen by a free act of God’s will and are eternally secure, or we are neither.
Seventh, Rom 8:29-30 seems to be decisive on this issue: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” The relative pronoun throughout refers to the same group each time: no one is lost—from foreknowing,[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
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 (Acts 2:23)!
220 replies to "Corporate Election (Dan Wallace)"
Having grown up Church of Christ, a group which emphasizes corporate election, I find this post very thought-provoking and convincing.
Thank you, Dr. Wallace.
It is good that you hold a “both…and” approach to this, also. Far too often I have seen among Evangelical folk theology the “accept Jesus as your personal savior” mindset completely cut off from an ecclesiological perspective that acknowledges corporate election and any sense of communal identity whatsoever. (Church of Christ folk theology seems to miss the mark here, also.)
May God grant you perseverance and insight for the coming weeks and years in your studies, writing, and teaching. Peace & grace.
Dr. Wallace,
I asked this on the other post and no one seems to know, but perhaps you do. Are you aware of any current Christian philosopher who considers compatibilism to be logically coherent concept?? I have honestly been searching for someone who does and has written about it and addressed the arguments of others against it. Just about every and I mean every Christian philosopher I have come across states exactly the opposite and asserts that compatibilism is for instance “utterly implausible” (Alvin Plantinga). Absent the validity of compatibilism it’s hard to see how Calvinism can be true.
Michael, I’m not sure I even know what combatilism is! I’m just an exegete, not a philosopher.
Dr. Wallace,
Just stating look at the Wikipedia article would probably be insufficient to adequately explain compatibilism. Defining the other two perspectives is much easier.
Libertarian Free Will – Human beings have the freedom of contrary choice. Arminians hold this view
Hard Determinism – All that occurs, both good and evil, is directly caused by God or a series of cause and effect events put into motion by God (one could use immaterial fates just as easily). People and in fact the entire world is ultimately a computer program and reality is a farce. Most Calvinists and Arminians would deny this view both because it inevidibly makes God the author of sin and it precludes moral responsibility (one cannot logically be morally outraged at a computer program simply playing out it’s programming).
Compatabilism essentially tries to affirm divine determinism and then redefine free will to be compatible with determinism. The problem is that if one looks at the various arguments (i.e. Van Inwagen’s Argument from Consequence) it doesn’t esacape the problems because it is still hard determinism. It just attempts to hide this behind a facade. Thus philosophically the options for the nature of things are, according to every Christian philosopher of which I am aware, Libertarian Free Will or Hard Determinism.
So the question I guess is that if exegesis of Scripture inevidibly neccessitates a logically contradictory metaphysical belief about the nature of free will should one question that exegesis? (I realize I haven’t established here in this post that it is logically contradictory – I am simply for purposes of this post asking the “if” question)
Thanks for the illuminating explanation. On the one hand, I’m hesitant to question one’s exegesis if it means coming up with a position that seems incompatible with the text. Ultimately, it is scripture, not philosophy, that we must subject ourselves to. On the other hand, a view that is biblically based must have some coherence to it. But it need not be on the level of full human comprehension. Consider inspiration for example: the standard evangelical view is that the Bible is both the word of God and the words of men simultaneously, and that God did not force his wording on the authors, nor did he simply restrain them from writing error. Verbal dictation is clearly not allowed, nor is a view that treats inspiration only in negative terms. But I have yet to read anyone who can harmonize the notion that the human authors are fully engaged in the writing of scripture and yet the Spirit inspired the work—also fully. At certain points, we absolutely must admit that our comprehension is that of finite creatures who live in a three-dimensional world, when reality is so much greater than this.
Paul seems to express this same viewpoint when he declares, “O, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways!” (Rom 11.33). This comes on the heels of Paul’s discourse about God’s sovereignty. It doesn’t sound to me as though Paul thought that human beings could figure the divine counsel out.
Dr. Wallace,
I would agree that paradox to an extent is acceptable and furthermore that there are things which are beyond human comprehesion. However, that is not what is being claimed here. Rather what is being claimed (by the likes of William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Peter Van Inwagen, etc.) is that there is a hard logical contradiction (and though I am no philosophy expert – I’m a lawyer – I find their arguments quite convincing for better or worse). Ultimately does not one use the laws of logic when performing exegesis and systematic theology?? For instance I think you would agree that the law of non-contradiction is a signifcant part of performing systematic theology (Scripture doesn’t directly contradict itself).
Agreed. But the law of non-contradiction is sometimes applied when we don’t have all the facts. Our plane of existence is finite and we don’t grasp all that we can, which means that some things that look like contradictions to us are not. What about the analogy with inspiration?
Dr. Wallace
There is of course the possiblity that our understanding of inspiration is incorrect if there is in fact a hard, intractable logical contradiction in the view (by which I do not mean simply a paradox). Thankfully Christian Philosphers have been hard at work at coming up with ways to avoid the contradiction. One proposal from Dr. Craig can be found here (be warned it’s long) though it is a good way to see how Christian Philosphers think about the work of Theologians (I honestly think both fields need to speak to each other more often).
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/menmoved.html
Michael, don’t you find it a bit ironic that philosophers have been working hard at avoiding the contradiction that inspiration seems to present, and that the argument itself is of some length, while they are not doing the same thing with individual election vs. genuine choice? My guess is that if they were to invest the same amount of time in the latter they would come up with an equally lengthy explanation. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they could not solve this dilemma. At bottom, I still think that we’re dealing–in both cases–with an issue that is beyond our full comprehension. And in the final analysis, philosophers need to show that their exegesis is at plausible if they’re going to make any headway.
Dr. Wallace,
I of course use “working hard” in a rather facetious manner. What I meant simply is that objections have been put forth which attempt to show that the traditional understanding of inspiration is logically fallacious. The objections have been responded to in a manner which show that the understanding is not logically fallacious as had been alledged.
In the case of compatibilism it is not true that philosophers have not attempted to show that it is not logically fallacious. Many have and in fact at one time in the Early 20th Century compatibilism was quite in vogue. The fact, at least according to the afformentioned philsophers, is that none of the arguments have stood up (which is why I am actually searching for someone from the other side – unamimous opinions are rare – someone has to have responded somewhere).
To your final point I think it is logically fallacious to say that they need to show some other exegesis is plausible in order to make headway. At least in my opinion either the metaphysical beliefs neccessitated by ones exegesis are logically plausible or logically fallacious. If they are logically fallacious one must look for another understanding.
Also on one other note is it fair to say that there are others in your field who would disagree with the exegesis you’ve given above or is there unanimity on this?
Michael, are you saying then that logic is to be the master over scripture? I appreciate logic as much as the next guy, but I also recognize the limits of our understanding. And, again, I must insist that any view has to be able to explain the text, using the linguistic and historical features of the text that we can discern. As far as those who comment on Romans, it is interesting that Arminians tend to comment on other books than Romans. John Piper’s The Justification of God (an exposition of Romans 9) needs to be answered if Arminians are to gain any headway in this chapter.
I am not much of a theologian or philosopher, but I think I hold to a view of compatibilism. I think Christians were elected based on whether we would freely choose to love God given the opportunity by God presented through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. God still has to initiate our ability to do this, but has just initiated the ability for those who would actually respond to it. For us it is actually free will because we are based in time. From God’s perspective (being outside of time and already seeing everything that has happened) it was predestination. It seems to me that might be how both arguments for our free will and God’s predestination are compatible. What would be the fallacies of this argument?
Dr. Wallace,
I guess I am in a sense saying that logic is the master over Scripture. Now don’t go flying off your seat shouting heretic just yet and let me explain. Scripture is at it’s base a document intended to be read by human readers. As such humans must interpret the words on the pages in order to apply a meaning to those words and arrive at a conclusion as to what the Bible means. The only possible way that one can do this is through logic. Now it may not be as developed as a formal syllogism, but when, for instance, one is confronted with a word that has more then one meaning and chooses one meaning over another given the context, they are using logic.
Logic is ultimately inescapable. You can’t help but use it if words on a page or the world in general are to make any sense whatsoever. Absent logic one can claim whatever they want and the assertion that I am a baked potato is no more or less valid then the assertion that I am a human being. Or in the case of the Bible the assertion that Skubulon should be translated “crap” (love your article on that by the way) is no more valid then saying it should be translated “computer monitor” (which is of course illogical for multiple reason, not the least of which is that computer monitors didn’t exist 2000 years ago). Just saying that X means Y is an exercise in logic.
Michael, what you’ve demonstrated is that logic is needed in understanding scripture. But your statement that “humans must interpret the words on the pages in order to apply a meaning to those words and arrive at a conclusion as to what the Bible means. The only possible way that one can do this is through logic” is not correct. Logic is needed, but it is not the only tool that one must use in interpreting a text. We also must use linguistic features (grammar, syntax, lexeme, etc.), history, cultural background, context, literary art, etc. These are all tools that we use to understand scripture, but we don’t place any of them above scripture. And, at bottom (I’m sounding like a broken record here), if our view of scripture is such that we can make everything fit into a neat logical box, then I would submit that we have misunderstood scripture and have placed ourselves above God.
Dr. Wallace,
All the tools you mention (linguistic features, history, context) etc. are tools and evidence to be used in making a logical argument that something should be interpreted in a certain way. They are not the argument itself. If I say X should be interpreted as meaning Y you will ask, “Why”? You will then expect me to produce evidence that is logically relevant to the subject and logically explains why X should mean Y. If, going back to the example above, I said Skubalon means “crap” because my mothers birthday is tommorrow you would rightly think I’m nuts. But why?? Because my reasoning was non-sequitar. In fact when you ask for a refutation of Piper’s “Justification” you are asking for a reasoned, logical explanation of why Piper is wrong. If I said Piper’s Justification is wrong because Piper is a no good dirty Baptist (I’m a Baptist btw) you would rightly ignore me.
Michael,
What you are essentially arguing is that the logic of what is perceived, i.e., experiential, is superior to the logic of the text, i.e., the logic that makes sense of linguistic, historical, contextual, canonical data of the Scripture. This isn’t a matter of logic versus illogic, but a matter of Scripture versus experience. I think that is the problem we’re running into. The source of authority we must first makes sense of is foundational to the argument. I must make sense of revelation before I attempt to make sense of what I perceive to be the case apart from revelation. For you, and we’ve had this discussion before, Scripture must accord with your perceived logic or truth, i.e., your sense of what is true. Of course, you have to assume all sorts of things that I don’t think are biblical about man and his ability to perceive the world correctly.
Hodge,
As an example of the type of logic I am referring to…
1. All A are B
2. X is A
3. Therefore X is B
or in the case of Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a cause
which is a form of this
1. All that have A have B
2. X has A
3. Therefore X has B
It’s not experiential – more mathematic. For instance here is an earlier version of the consequence argument.
http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/vaninwagenI.html
Secondly if one does not have rules of logical argumentation when approaching Scripture as I stated earlier one can state Scripture means whatever they want it to mean. Absent logical rules no assertion can be any better then another interpretation. When I say X in Scripture means Y and you tell me it doesn’t because of various liguistic, historical, and contextual factors you are making a logical argument. The logic you are using precedes understanding Scripture. To state that the logic it is drawn from Scripture is absurd since absent that logic base Scripture is gibberish. It’s no different then absent reading lessens the letters in a book are gibberish to a 3 year old.
Dan Wallace, I have read this thru twice and think you have presented your position well, and some of it moderately persuasively to someone from a different perspective.
I am tending toward a corporate perspective in Romans 9, and I wonder whether you corporate interpretation is a little too “corporate.” God saves individuals, not groups of people. But God can still have a plan as part of his purpose that involves groups. God had intentions for Israel that he did not have for Gentiles prior to Christ, but individuals inside Israel were not saved, and some outside Israel were. So it is clear that the possibility of corporate and individual perspectives play a part in some of the Bible (and you say as much).
I don’t find your comments about God choosing individuals for tasks (apostles, Abraham) overly relevant in the debate over election unto salvation. But I would add that perhaps (some) election passages are about God’s purposes for a group, and not about individuals getting saved?
But in defence of corporate perspective, I think one can argue for individuals within a group even if the group is defined corporately. The elect are individuals within the group if the example applies to individuals, and the group if the example refers to the group as a whole; and the former still applies even if “election” or “church” is defined corporately.
(I find the choice of Romans 8 interesting. It may be reasonable that no one is lost from foreknowing to glorification, but foreknowledge is hardly synonymous with forechoosing.)
Michael T, you are correct about logic. Reason is part of the imago Dei. It is not that Scripture is so much subservient to it, rather it is incomprehensible without it. As God is reasons right and better than us, his Word is hardly going to be unreasonable (meaning illogical).
So if a theological position is logically incoherent it is not true. A cannot be not A (in the same way at the same time).
This is not to be confused with a philosophical-theological position which can be disproved by Scripture.
Though because of our (fallen) poor reasoning abilities, what we call illogical may sometimes be our wrong reasoning.
@bethyada:
You said:
“(I find the choice of Romans 8 interesting. It may be reasonable that no one is lost from foreknowing to glorification, but foreknowledge is hardly synonymous with forechoosing.)”
There’s a whole debate here about what it means for God to “know” something, but I won’t go there for now. Just taking what you said at face value; it essentially makes the section on “calling” redundant. If they were foreknown, in the sense that you give it, they must have already been called. I think at that point the logical (heh!) conclusion is that there are two types of calling. But that whole idea seems to take wind right out of the sails of what Paul is saying here. While it sounds grandiose and powerful, it really deserves a giant asterisk and a note stating that it’s all dependent on our responding correctly to the initial “calling” (which is oddly omitted given that it’s REALLY the foundation for Paul’s progression of thought here) and moment by moment choosing to remain in Christ.
Michael,
Please reread what I said. I didn’t say we draw logic from the Scripture. I said we use logic to understand both the Scripture and experience, i.e., what we perceive from our finite perspective. You are wanting to make sense of what you perceive as true from experience and then make sense of Scripture with that. I would make sense of Scripture and then see if my understanding gained from experience complies. It is a difference in the delineation of authority.
The logical syllogisms you gave me are just methods of logic. They have nothing to do with what you are putting into those syllogisms. What you put into them is the subject of which you are trying to make sense; and when you put them together, which has priority will shed light on all sorts of presuppositions about man, God, the universe, the gospel, etc.
So what I said before stands. You are placing perceived truth over revealed truth in terms of which one must dictate the interpretive boundaries to the other, are you not?
Hodge,
I see no reason why if logic applies to our method for trying to deduce the meaning to the text logic shouldn’t also apply to the plausibility of the meanings we draw from that text and whether or not those meanings are logically contradictory. It is ultimately the same rules.
So for instance
1. I draw meaning A from text X (using argumentation and evidence to form a logical, reasoned argument)
2. I draw meaning B from text Y
3. I draw meaning C from text Z
Then why can’t I do this
4. According to the rules of logic holding to meanings A, B, and C at once creates a logical contradiction and therefore one of my interpretations must be wrong.
Or This
4. Holding to meaning A inescapably requires that the world be flat.
5. The world is demonstrably not flat
6. Therefore meaning A is wrong
I see no reason for the divide you wish to create.
I am not at all going to argue that revelation is not very important in understanding Scripture. Neither am I going say that logic is not very important.
Without naming names, anyone that has followed a conversation on another thread on this site for the last few days should have had an up close and personal look at what happens when one uses only what they believe to be revelation or spiritual knowing to interpret Scripture and doesn’t employ any normal rules or logic of interpretation of written material. That logic was bypassed and the results were interesting to say the least.
Michael,
I agree that logic/non-contradiction is used in interpreting Scripture. That’s what’s happening when we say “You can’t interpret that passage as teaching universalism, because other passages unambiguously teach that some people will spend eternity in hell.”
It’s also what’s happening when someone says “You can’t interpret that passage as denying universalism, because the Bible clearly teaches that God loves everyone.”
In the first, the contradiction is very direct–“some will be in hell for eternity” vs “no one will be in hell for eternity”. In the second, the problem is in underlying assumptions: Someone is holding to a preconceived understanding, in which if God loves someone, he will necessarily bring them to heaven when they die. (I’m not 100% sure whether the resolution lies in a better understanding of love, or in a better understanding of what’s required to keep someone out of hell, or in something else.)
The point is, logic is only as good as your assumptions & definitions. (As Dan put it, sometimes we apply logic before we have all the facts.) Scripture is supposed to correct our assumptions & definitions–we’re supposed to learn something. That can resolve apparent conflicts–but we should also remember that God didn’t promise to reveal all the understanding we’d need to resolve every apparent conflict we might encounter.
As for compatibilism: Let’s grant for the sake of argument that compatibilism seems to be incoherent. We can’t be any more confident in that than we are in our understanding of what choice really is, or how it works (i.e. what the “will” is), or how God might act to bring about his purposes.
Speaking for myself: I don’t know how choice works. I can’t wrap my mind around it. And I don’t have good reason to think that anyone else does. So this philosophy isn’t enough to make me say, “I must be misunderstanding these election passages.”
Michael,
This is where we divide: “I see no reason why if logic applies to our method for trying to deduce the meaning to the text logic shouldn’t also apply to the plausibility of the meanings we draw from that text”
We divide on this point because of the unseen proposition in your statement here, but one you have made clear already, and that is:
The Scripture must accord with what I perceive to be true. If there is a logical contradiction with what I perceive to be true, the Scripture must be reinterpreted to harmonize.
Cheryl,
I find your comments absurd. Everyone in the conversation has been using logic. Some of us, however, were using the Scripture as our authority to decipher first and then apply that to our logic of the world. Others were just content to see their traditions, gained from the logic of experience, to hold greater sway. Hence, that group did not bother with the formality of discussing the text too indepth.
Side note: It’s annoying that the blog’s font turns double-dashes into a character that looks as small as a regular hyphen. Like in this sentence:
It looks like the two words are hyphenated. To get a dash in the sentence, you have to remember to put three dashes:
Thanks Hodge, you do have a way with words, don’t you?
Hodge,
Are you not as bound by your tradition as anyone else? You assume that you are absolutely correct in your interpretation of the Bible and you base your tradition upon this interpretation. The fact that this interpretation can be challenged on numerous logical grounds leads you to simply dismiss any challenge not based upon the text. You really are no different then those who still dogmatically claim the Earth is flat (and yes they do still exist). Scriptural Revelation is far superior to general revelation and therefore feel free to ignore general revelation whenever it threatens ones tradition.
And again no matter how dogmatically you claim otherwise your logic preceded Scripture and is the basis upon which you understand Scripture. One cannot draw logic from Scripture and then apply it to the world. One can only draw ideas and themes from Scripture and then show through logic how they apply to the world, but the logic itself does not come from Scripture. Scripture rather assumes logic just like it assumes Greek or Hebrew or the cultural setting of 1st Century Palestine.
I’m a little late to this party (but only a little).
Michael, I didn’t notice your claim that “hard determinism” is implied by compatibilism in general (and Calvinism in particular), but denied by them. I’m a little confused … from what I’ve read, the ONLY difference between hard and soft determinism is that soft determinists are compatibilists. There’s no other difference.
What am I missing?
How can compatibilism imply its own rejection?
Oh, Cheryl — what you said in post #23 is unworthy of you. If you’re going to call names, name names first. And do so to our faces. What happened in that thread is not at ALL as you’ve attempted to characterize it. (Am I really supposed to be rebelling against all the rules of logic??? Has someone stolen your computer and is posting in your name? This namecalling isn’t like you at all. Disagree without being disagreeable, please.)
-Wm
Um William,
I am not talkling about you and I am not talking about Hodge and I am not talking about any conversations on the Calvinism thread at all!
Quit jumping to conclusions here, would you, and jumping down my throat for something I didn’t even do. I know at least one person that read my comment would know exactly who I was referring to and I figured a lot of others probably would too. After all, it was a conversation that has been going on for many days now. I didn’t name names because I didn’t want to embarrass the gentleman in question if he happened to be reading here. And I certainly had no idea at all that you would take it personally.
I was talking about this thread and a recent conversation with a gentleman there:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/04/will-one-white-lie-send-you-to-hell-for-all-eternity/#comments
Go read the conversation there for yourself, both you and Hodge, and I think you just might see what I mean and why I brought this up in this thread where revelation of Scripture was being stressed so strongly even if it didn’t logically see to make sense.
Next time I will definetly know better then to try and use an exmample like this. I guess it wasn’t wise of me to try this time and I apologize for that.
WM,
The various arguments on the issue appear to show that soft determinism (compatibilism) is an oxymoron. The beliefs the soft determinist has entail hard determinism.
As to Cheryl’s comments they maybe should have been posted on the other forum, but I agree with her conclusions to a point. I can’t follow your logic at least. You basically seem to continually be saying English words don’t mean what they mean. At the end of the day on the other forum you are basically saying to me and Cheryl that absent a belief in Calvinism we can’t even put English words together properly to form meaningful sentences. The sentence stated reads “God is the author of sin” and you tell us that it doesn’t mean “God is the author of sin”. I don’t really know what to say to that.
ROFL,
I’ve been in that coversation Cheryl and I still thought you were talking about Hodge and WM.
Well Michael T,
I thought surely YOU would know exactly what I was talking about since you were a part of that conversation! Oh dear.
Thank you so much for so quickly clarifying that. In case you’re wondering, I would take your bare assertion that you weren’t talking about me as gospel truth — you are the authority on what your words mean, and I won’t question what you say you meant.
You’ve been gracious in the past, so I’m much relieved that you continue to be so.
-Wm
You’ve put one single argument forward which you claim shows that, but the author’s backed away from that claim and now says that it actually disproves free will (not compatibilism). You’ve put nothing else forward, so it’s an exaggeration to say “various arguments”.
It would help if you’d ask questions, I think. I don’t even know what you mean at this point — what English words have I called into question?
I have no idea what you’re referring to. Could you post to the other forum the post number in which it appears I made that claim? I’ll tell you right now right here that I didn’t intend to make that statement, and I disclaim it utterly.
-Wm
I remember making a post on the subject of that sentence, but I’m confused at how you read it. I referred to two different authors using that phrase, Calvin (who was speaking in Reformation-era French) and the Westminster divines (who were speaking in an old dialect of English). The interesting thing to me is that Calvin was quoted as “God is the author of sin”, and the Westminster divines said “God cannot be the author of sin”. The problem is that it’s very well documented that the meaning of “author” in the older English language wasn’t the same as it is in the modern English. I don’t know what language Calvin was writing in, so I can’t even guess what word he used, but from other context I can guess his meaning as being closer to the modern English sense.
-Wm
“And again no matter how dogmatically you claim otherwise your logic preceded Scripture and is the basis upon which you understand Scripture.”
Michael,
You remind me of atheists who throw around the word “science” as a way to posture a point. Logic are the rules and methodologies we use in ordering our thoughts. I’m sure there’s a better definition, but it isn’t the one you’ve been throwing around. I hope that I’ve used logic before I came to Scripture, but that has nothing to do with what I do with Scripture. I think you’re talking about philosophical presuppositions, not logic. They’re two different things. My point to you is that you are wanting your logic to assign authority first to what you perceive to be true via experience and then to the Scripture as secondary. That means that you not only recheck Scripture when experience may cause you to do so, you have to distort or reject Scripture when it does. Your not going to reject it, so for you, it’s a radical reinterpretation of texts that ignores context, grammar, etc. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis. I’m happy to re-evaluate my interpretation of Scripture based on external concepts in order to make sure that the Scripture really says what both I and those within my tradition believe it says, but I’m not willing to turn off my brain to the text because I don’t want to admit that my perception of the God and the world gained from experience may be deceiving me.
Cheryl,
It’s good to know that you find Wm and I to be of the highest logical order. 😉 Thanks for clarifying.
WM
“You’ve put one single argument forward which you claim shows that, but the author’s backed away from that claim and now says that it actually disproves free will (not compatibilism). You’ve put nothing else forward, so it’s an exaggeration to say “various arguments”.”
I have never read any writing of Van Inwagen’s where he makes the statements you claim. As I said earlier he has made statements in the past that he is not sure LFW is a fully coherent concept either (which would leave one solely with hard determinism). However, I have never seen anything where he backs away from his claim that compatibilism is a logical contradiction or that the Consequence Argument demonstrates this. Perhaps you could point me to where this is.
Hodge,
Again I think you are confusing a merely emotional appeal to the way I want things to be with the logical erudiation of analytic philosophy. Just to give an example. The Kalam Cosmological Argument mentioned earlier.
1. All things which begin to exist have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe therefore has a cause.
Now when presented with an argument like this one can defeat it in two ways. The first is to deny that the conclusion follows the premises. The second is to show that one of the premises is false or even that the denial of one of the premises is more plausible then the affirmation of that premise. Since in this case according to the rules of logic the conclusion logically follows the premises one can either give a defeator by showing an example where something came into existence uncaused, or that the universe did not have a beggining. One cannot simply say “well I feel that no God exists and therefore I’m just going to deny the validity of the argument”
[…] a comment » Daniel B. Wallace begins his answer to a pastor regarding the viability of corporate election with the following: “First, allow […]
Michael,
“Again I think you are confusing a merely emotional appeal to the way I want things to be with the logical erudiation of analytic philosophy.”
No, I’m not. Analytical philosophy is based on presuppositions to which one cannot arrive at via analytical philosophy. You have starting points from which you reason. What dictates those starting points is that which you believe to be true, and what you believe to be true is based upon what authority you believe accurately communicates that truth to you.
Your explanation of how a syllogism works has nothing to do with what I’m saying. You need to back up a step. You’re assuming all sorts of things in the premises. The premises are where you are placing the category of “Things you believe to be true.” The premises are stated as true because the philosopher perceives that they are true either by A. an experience he has himself, or B. an external authority to himself which he trusts. You are arguing primarily that that which falls under Category A is primary in determining reality and that that which is in Category B, specifically the Bible, is to be harmonized with it, even if the logic of the text screams otherwise. This isn’t a matter of logic. It’s a matter of which authority is to be the primary source, i.e., controlling propositions, to which other sources of our conceptual world must bow.
Hodge,
OK I think I see what you are saying in one sense, but I don’t think that is what is going on here. One is getting their premises in the current case from what the compatibilist claims to believe and then showing that by the rules of logic those beliefs are logically contradictory. So for instance if one believed that all rich people are Republicans because the rich people they know are Republicans we could demonstrate via the rules of logic that the conclusion that all rich people are Republicans does not follow from the premise that some Republicans are rich.
What one believes personally is irrelevant to an evaluation of someone elses belief showing that that belief is a logically contradictory belief.
Michael,
I agree with everything you said there. The problem is that you have not demonstrated a logical contradiction in terms of the belief not following from the premises or in terms of the belief being self refuting. You only think this because you get to frame the debate with your own definitions of “free will,” which by its very nature cannot have predetermination. We don’t define free will that way, and as I said, I don’t even like using the term because it carries too much baggage that confuses in my mind what the Bible is saying. If we go by your definitions, then sure, your argument makes sense. The problem is that we don’t use your definitions, me, Wm, or any other Calvinist I have ever known. If man is influenced effectually rather than forced, I see that he has made a volitional choice and is responsible for his decision. I see no contradiction in saying that God effectually influences him then.
Hodge,
I would also furthermore add that I think you objection, while I kind of get it, is ultimately irrelevant. If someone presents you with the premises of a argument and the conclusion one should be able to show that those premises are false. So for instance if the Kalam Cosmological Argument given earlier is wrong one should be able to show where it went wrong unless of course the argument is question begging in which case it is logically fallacious anyhow (and this could take the form of showing a presupposition inherent in the argument which is likely wrong). The actualy beliefs of Bill Craig are irrelevant. Either the premises are true and the conclusion follows making the argument valid, or the argument is false.
Hodge,
Here is a fundamental question that may illuminate things or may not – I don’t know.
Is the universe fundamentally cause and effect? So for instance will the fact that Shelley chose to ride the bus to work today instead of drive inevidibly lead through a simply cause and effect manner to her marrying the boy she meets on the bus. Or is there some transcendent X factor within humans which can interupt the causal chain? If there is no X factor then how can one describe things as anything other than a very intricate computer program, or perhaps a Rube Goldberg machine.
While I take exception with some aspects of what you wrote, I do find the last sentence off base. As an Arminian, I do not consider Norman Geisler “the greatest Arminian apologist.” Even Geisler himself doesn’t consider himself an Arminian nor do I. At best he would be a 4 point Arminian but not a full blow Arminian as I am. For example, Geisler believes in eternal security (as Calvinist likewise do though they might use different words) but classical Arminians do not.
The greatest Arminian apologist is hard to define. I enjoy Dr. Jack Cottrell or Dr. Robert Picirilli. However, I understand the Calvinist dislike for Geisler for his attacks on White’s The Potter’s Freedom and so they label him that nasty word “Arminian” though that is not completely accurate.
“So for instance if the Kalam Cosmological Argument given earlier is wrong one should be able to show where it went wrong unless of course the argument is question begging in which case it is logically fallacious anyhow (and this could take the form of showing a presupposition inherent in the argument which is likely wrong).”
Michael,
This itself begs the question as to whether we have all of the information we need to rightly understand that our premises, based on our experiential observation and reasoning from the natural world, are in fact correct. That again returns us to the authority question. It’s not irrelevant at all.
“Is the universe fundamentally cause and effect? So for instance will the fact that Shelley chose to ride the bus to work today instead of drive inevidibly lead through a simply cause and effect manner to her marrying the boy she meets on the bus.”
I think you’re framing this wrong. We should discuss this in terms of Shelley’s enslavement to sin. Shelley will choose whatever she loves. Her love is bound to her life of self worship. She is not free because of her sin. She serves a master. She willingly does so, but she serves as a slave nonetheless. Can Shelley do anything other than sin? No. Her life is sin. So she is bound by her sin. God, in His sovereignty, then uses that enslavement toward a good purpose rather than toward meaninglessness. So can Shelley use her sin any way she wants to? No, she must use it as the King of All things directs it to His good. Her choice is in serving sin. The individual ways she does that, which then lead to events transpiring in this or that way, is still a choice she is willingly making, but is influenced by God via another agent to bring about the events as He wishes them to transpire. So I don’t believe that the human has a trascendent quality because I don’t view choice as something that is not utterly influenced by environment, lesser agents, God, and herself (remember, she…
influences herself as well due to her sin nature).
Hodge,
1. “This itself begs the question as to whether we have all of the information we need to rightly understand that our premises, based on our experiential observation and reasoning from the natural world, are in fact correct. That again returns us to the authority question.”
Then point out what bit of information we don’t have all the information about, or what presupposition is not properly grounded or could be false. It’s not like it’s hard to show the possibility that something like this being wrong. Now it may not be a plausible solution. For instance let me show a way the Kalam Cosmological “could” be wrong. Add this bit of information. We all live in a computer program like the movie the Matrix and nothing is real. Now of course this is highly implausible and would fail to convince 99% of people that the argument is invalid, but it would defeat the argument.
Ultimately though I’m not sure how one can go against what they know to be true about the world. If one knows the world is round they won’t believe and will reinterpret or come to a different understanding of the passages in Scripture which indicate that it is flat. If one knows that the orchid, and not the mustard seed, is the smallest seed one will come to an understanding that the mustard seed is background information and not the teaching itself. If one knows that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa one will interpret Bible passages which indicate otherwise as being faulty cultural information. In each of these cases I agree 100% with making the determinations that have been made. In fact I would bet that independent of one another we have come to very similar conclusions about these passages. Yet in each case it is in fact Scripture which has bowed to our understanding of the world and not vice versa. What do we do with that??
2. Why does she choose to be a slave to sin?? And if you answer because she desires sin why does she desire sin??