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)"
That’s all true; but you can also defeat an argument’s purpose by pointing out that one of its premises, although well-supported and plausible, is unproven and could possibly be false, or by showing that some of the steps in the proof are weak and could possibly be false. Hawking recently attempted to do essentially that with the premise ‘all things which come into existance have a beginning.’ His alleged counterexample is a mere mathematical possibility, but it (if it worked) weakens the Kalaam from a complete certainty to a merely strong likelihood. This means that although an atheistic origin story is still unscientific, it’s not a total impossibility.
The point is not that philosophical conclusions are useless; the point is that they are very complex, often more complex than they seem, and the more complex they are, the more tentatively humans should hold to them.
The complexity of a philosophical premise may be judged roughly based on the number of steps of reasoning it requires starting with the evidence (as well as the certainty of the steps).
This is why Hodge and I prefer to see interpretations of the Bible being made based on other Biblical interpretations, rather than based on philosophical theories remotely derived from philosophical interpretations.
-Wm
Michael,
I’m sorry. I think you misunderstood me, and it was my fault. My point wasn’t addressing the argument. I was under the impression that the argument you were using was merely an illustration to a larger point. I was addressing premises in general and their limitations to our presuppositions based in our beliefs about authority. I wasn’t looking to dismantle the argument specifically.
Your second paragraph was exactly what I was saying before. It’s not a point against what I am saying at all. I said that I thought it was fine to allow extra-biblical concepts to challenge us to reread the Bible in case we misunderstood what it was teaching. All of your examples are of that variety. That’s not bowing the Scripture to those extrabiblical concepts because if Scripture is seen to be teaching X, then X is not to be bowed to our experiential perception. But to conclude that we have to ignore what the passage is saying or cause it to conform to our experience in contradiction to the language, context, grammar, images, etc. is not something with which I would agree at all.
2. Because she has a sin nature. Didn’t we go over this already? The two human beings who chose to use their free will (and they actually had it in terms of not being bound by a sin nature) to worship themselves instead of God. Their children, being separated relationally from God now, end up loving themselves and choosing to live in that same rebellion. You seem to be implying that if a person is influenced effectually to sin, then they cannot be held responsible because they don’t really choose. That is absurd to me. And you still have not answered my question on John 12:39-40. I’m going to keep bringing it up until you answer it. I seriously want to know how you explain passages like this.
Hodge,
1. Is it that we have simply reexamined Scripture found it to say something different then it said before or is it that our understanding of the way the world works has changed and therefore when we look at the text we (with those new presuppositions) inevidiby find something different?
2. OK, she has a sin nature. Why does she have a sin nature? Because of the fall (seriuosly theology may not be my strongest suit, but I at least get this). The next questions is why did the fall of humanity occur? Because Adam and Eve ate the apple. Why did Adam and Eve eat the apple? Because they desired to do so. Why did Adam and Eve desire to commit sin and eat the apple??
3. On the passage in John. As I’ve indicated I’m no exegete, nor a theologian. I’m a lawyer for heavens sake which is probably the furthest thing from either one of those. I have enough knowledge from reading the Bible and studying it to recognize obvious error (e.g. the person on the other post who is claiming that a true Christian never sins and he himself has not sinned since he became a true Christian) but beyond that I can only defer to those more educated then myself. Arminian theologians have of course responded to this text and just about every other Calvinist proof text there is numerous times and in numerous ways (Calvinists have of course done the same for Arminian proof texts). If I were to simply view the Arminian – Calvinist debate objectively I think I would find that the funniest element is that no explanation ever given by a Arminian is acceptable to a Calvinist and no explanation ever given by a Calvinist is acceptable to a Arminian. I have yet to ever hear one side say the other side has made a good point about anything. So one must wonder what the point about debating Scripture is on the subject. Any response is going to be ridiculous from the Calvinists perspective and vice versa.
Michael,
1. I seriously think, for some, that you’re right, and that they simply have more faith in their perceptions than the Scripture, and therefore, that is why they have changed their minds and bowed Scripture to that; but for me, that is not why I, nor most of the evangelical scholars I know, look twice at the text. We’re not looking to bow the Scripture to our experiential notions, but to make sure that we have understood it correctly if we’re going to die on that hill. In the case of cosmology, you might be surprised to know that most of the Church has wondered if the purpose of Scripture was to communicate these sorts of things to us or whether they are simply used in the service of its theological or ethical messages. I view myself in a long line of Christians, then, who have taken a second look at Scripture to make sure I was looking it at correctly. So I don’t disagree that some have interpreted Scripture differently because they have a higher authority than the Scripture, but i do disagree that this is the case for all of us who have taken a second look.
2. You’re asking why they desired to eat it? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Apparently, Eve was deceived into thinking it was good thing, so she ate it. Adam wasn’t deceived, but desired to perhaps please Eve. Their purposes were obviously evil in that they ignored God’s instruction to them. But what you’re really asking me is whether God MADE them eat of it, and the answer, as it has been, is, NO. But did God command a third party to enter the garden and influence them effectually to eat it so that He could ultimately redeem mankind? Absolutely. I don’t think that when the Scripture says that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world that this is simply God reacting to what He foresees occurring in a future sea of LFW decisions. In fact, I’m not sure how they are still LFW decisions if God knows beforehand that they will happen and nothing else can occur but what God knows…
beforehand, but I’ll leave that one for the Neo-Theists. The point in the Fall would be the same as the point at the end of Genesis, “You planned this for evil, but God planned it for good” (Gen 50:20).
3. I’ll take that as an admission that you have no idea how it works out in your system, and you’re just going to therefore ignore it. I’ve never heard an Arminian explain this verse in its logical order, EVER; so maybe you’re more privy to their great explanations, but don’t want to fill me in on them? I think the text within the context of John, the immediate context, etc. is pretty clear. They did not believe because God prevented them from believing. He decided to punish their crimes rather than forgive them of their crimes. He decided to have mercy upon whom He would have mercy, and to harden whom He would harden.
1. I guess the question is what authority we afford to general revelation. I would appear that Scripture itself contemplates there being authority inherent in the order observable in nature.
2. Bill Craig has responded to the issue of whether or not LFW can exist concurrently with God’s foreknowledge in a debate I have read. Unfortunetly the search tool on his site is not working right now so I can’t find that debate. I will get the info as soon as I find it.
3. “But did God command a third party to enter the garden and influence them effectually to eat it so that He could ultimately redeem mankind? Absolutely.”
So then God is guilty of incitement is your argument more or less?? (I realize “guilty” is a charged word here – don’t really know how to phrase it in a less charged way).
4. It’s not that I don’t have an answer to this or an understanding of this. It’s more that I do not feel adequate to debate any response you may have to it. Odds are you will dismiss it as illogical, not keeping with the text, taken out of context, etc. and I admittedly do not have the skills to debate you on such an issue anymore then I have the ability to debate Wallace’s exegesis above.
Some notes on older discussions that I wished to comment on:
Michael, I can’t speak for him, but I believe that although philosophy is valuable, it’s hard to do. The farther your process of reasoning takes you from the evidence, the less trustworthy the results are — the more likely you made a misstep along the way. The Bible is evidence that should be integrated into philosophy, and yes, it has to be interpreted — but a direct interpretation is only a short step away from the actual evidence. Compare that to our philosophies of compatibilism or LFW, which aren’t any kind of interpretation of any single Bible verse, but are rather remotely derived from evidence by means of long reasoning. One therefore shouldn’t use them directly to dismiss an interpretation of a Bible verse; rather, one should only use Bible verses in context to do so.
Of course, LFW or compatibilism can war against each other on a level playing field. 🙂 And of course, we can use both names to characterize interpretations of Bible verses, as happened with Cheryl’s LFW reading of Deuteronomy 30; but I showed from the direct context that there was no LFW in sight of the author. (Of course, I should add that they didn’t say anything at all about compatibilism there either — it was simple determinism, no mention of will at all.)
-Wm
Hey William,
Did you read my follow up note on the other thread about the Deut verses? I showed over there how and why I believe your argument to be incorrect! 🙂 🙂
PS These discussions could go on forever with no one convincing anyone of anything!!
James answers exactly this question in chapter 1.
Let me set the context first. James first says that the result of temptation (which, in context, is the temptation to fall away because of poverty and local social persecution) is either endurance proving genuineness leading to a crown of glory given by God, or falling away. The natural question is to ask, since God gives the situation and the reward and the punishment, did God tempt us? James’ answer is inconsistent from the LFW answer (and the hard determinist answer): he says that temptation comes from our desires. He doesn’t say that temptation comes from having two free choices with one bad; it comes from our desires; and he doesn’t say that it comes because God made us fall away regardless of our desires. And the result of the temptation doesn’t show that we made a bad free choice: it shows that we have “proven to be genuine.” The one who endures to the end is not merely one who’s made a series of free choices all correctly (or who finally made the right choice at the end): rather, it’s the one who was genuine all along, or at the end; either way, by nature, not by choice.
The choices simply make the person’s character (including their desires) evident. This is also apparent in James’ treatment of the tongue.
-Wm
I thought I would make you all aware of the Reply to Wallace’s work on this subject by Dr. Brian Abasciano, member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians. God bless.
William,
Thank you for providing the link to Dr. Abasciano’s rebuttal article.
I somehow missed this post, and have just now read it. Dan, I highly appreciate much of your work, but I think you’ve gone off-track with this post. You write: “If that is what you mean by corporate election, then I would reject it,” and then explain why. The problem is the view of corporate election that you state and then oppose is a very poor and inadequate articulation of the corporate election view, and this affects the validity of much of the rest of your post. I strongly doubt if any of the leading proponents of corporate election would define the concept in this way. This is dangerously close to a straw man argument, which I’m sure is not your intention.
I’m glad to see the link to Brian Abasciano’s response. I think he does a very capable job of responding to your post, and showing the weaknesses of your arguments. It would be interesting to read your surrejoinder.
Curt, thanks for your comments. It is quite possible that I don’t have a good grasp on corporate election. And the last thing I want to do is misrepresent another person’s viewpoint. Unfortunately, my schedule right now is really packed. I hope to read Abasciano’s materials in the next few weeks and offer a response at that time.
dbw
Dan, thanks for your very gracious reply. I can definitely understand how busy you must be. I’ll look forward to reading your thoughts regarding Abasciano’s writings on corporate election when you have the time.
Blessings,
Curt
[…] Corporate Election […]
This post is very gracious, especially the opening paragraph. Loved it. I found the arguments, however, less convincing. As someone pointed out already, there is a distinction not being recognized in the post between being chosen for a purpose and elected for salvation. This makes the word “chose” a free-for-all, used for proof-text purposes.
The jump to “corporate election amounts to a denial of total depravity” is rather hasty. This assumes that to deny this basic Calvinistic doctrine (Unconditional Election) amounts to heresy, of which then all of church history except the narrow strand of Beza-Calvinism subscribes. I think that is just a wee-bit arrogant and naive. Of course if anyone is ever to get saved, God must take the initiative. Your appeal to Eph 2:1-11 as a individual call preceding the corporate election of Eph 2:12-11 is ironic considering – on that logic – that Eph 1 precedes Eph 2:1-11 and stands on one of the strongest declarations of “In Christ” found in scripture.
I’ll end there. 🙂
Derek, I think you’re confusing Total Depravity with something else. Denying total depravity is an error, I believe, but isn’t a recognized heresy. Catholics mostly reject it, and EO definitely formally reject it (along with Original Sin).
The 5 points of Calvinism are logically linked such that denying one of them MUST deny the strict meaning of the others. In this case, to affirm corporate election you have to directly deny Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace (because those two imply that each and all of the chosen will certainly be saved), and if those are false, then grace is resistible, which means that the people who are saved must be the ones who didn’t resist it, which means that they must not be totally depraved, but only partially so.
-Wm
Only the first 50 comments show, and there does not seem to be any way to view the rest fo the comments.
wm tanksley said that grace being resistible “means that the people who are saved must be the ones who didn’t resist it, which means that they must not be totally depraved, but only partially so.”
**** But this does not follow in the least. Arminianism holds that God enables people to believe. This does not change their nature, but enables them to do something with the totally depraved nature they have that they could not do *on their own*. Moreover, as you say yourself in framing your comment, the grace is resistible. So it has to do with the nature of the grace that is dispensed, not the nature of the person who encounters the grace. Believing cannot show that someone was not totally depraved if the grace is enabling yet resistible.
Hi “wm”, when I associated the phrase “total depravity” with “heresy” I was speaking as though I were a Calvinist (of whom such word and phrase associations are common, and from the perspective of the author of this post I surmise). I do not believe denying T-D is heresy.
All the points of TULIP are as you say, except perhaps the “T”. Classical Arminians reject ULIP while maintaining the T. They happen to share the Calvinist view of prevenient grace, but believe that grace to be universal and conditional (as I’m sure you are well aware).
This is made up theology. There is an election in the Bible, but you aren’t recognizing it as it appears in the Bible, though it is clear. You are simply putting forward as doctrine the teachings of men.
If we were to go looking for ‘The Election’ in the Bible we’d look for something like “I will be your God, and you will be my people”. An assertion like that, and not much else, sounds exactly like God choosing His elect, a people to be a particular possession [Deut 7:6][Psa 135:4].
Strangely, that exact election took place, but it was given exclusively to the House of Israel and the House of Judah [Exo 6:7][Jer 7:23][Jer 11:4][Jer 30:22][Eze 36:28].
Jesus said “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and robber.” Unless Christians are the House of Israel or the House of Judah, they have no right to claim an election that doesn’t belong to them. They are entering the sheepfold by another way.
Any theology of election then, is merely Christian fluff, since it is not Biblically sound. Although the New Covenant clearly speaks of the ‘elect’ notice to whom the New covenant was promised [Jer 31:31] (also quoted in [Heb 8:8]). It was promised to the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
Notice also, that God set the duration of this New Covenant promise to the House of Israel, and the House of Judah (in [Jer 31:35-36]), to be true as long as the moon’s orbit was fixed, as long as the sun shines, and as long as the ocean roars. In other words, Israel was to be an everlasting possession [Gen 48:4].
Notice also, who Jesus understood His ‘elect’ to be [Matt 10:6][Matt 15:24]. Somehow Christian’s ignore all of this and speak of an election as though there were two. There is only one.
I think it wise, before answering theological questions about the nature of ‘election’, Christian’s should first start by recognizing the election as it…
Hi “wm”, […] I do not believe denying T-D is heresy.
Okay. I don’t understand the point of your argument, then.
-Wm
Arminian said: “So it has to do with the nature of the grace that is dispensed, not the nature of the person who encounters the grace. Believing cannot show that someone was not totally depraved if the grace is enabling yet resistible.”
The fact that some respond to the grace and some do not means there is inequality of outcomes. This inequality is either due to differences in the grace applied, or differences in the sinner to whom the grace is applied. Since Arminians normally base the doctrine of prevenient grace on the need for God to give a fair chance to all, this means that the difference could not be in different grace being supplied; that would imply that the grace supplied to those who DID accept was in fact irresistible. Therefore, the difference must be in the sinners; the ones who submit must be more willing to respond to grace, and therefore (in fact and deed) better people than the ones who did not respond.
-Wm
wm tanksley (November 1, 2010 at 11:47 am) said: “the difference must be in the sinners; the ones who submit must be more willing to respond to grace, and therefore (in fact and deed) better people than the ones who did not respond.”
**** The difference is indeed with the sinners. (BTW, this does not provide ground for legitimate boasting since faith, as Scripture makes clear, precludes legitimate boasting; see Rom 3 and 4 e.g.) But this in no way implies that the sinner who responds positively to the gospel had a different general nature than the one who did not, let alone “better”. That is a question-begging assumption born of compatibilism, and so a totally fallacious line of reasoning IMO. There can be 2 people, e.g., whose natures are the exact same and yet precludes them from lifting a million pound weight. But someone can assist them so that the both are enabled to lift the weight with the assistance provided if they lift (the assistance won’t lift it by itself, and the person cannot lift it on his own; but he can lift it with the assistance). This does not change the person’s nature. It is assistance from another source that enables the person to do the thing in question.
The disagreement is over your claim that the person who accepts God’s grace cannot be totally depraved, which is a claim that he cannot be in a state that keeps him from believing *on his own*. By definition, the Arminian view defies your claim, since it believes the person cannot believe *on his own*.
Continuing last comment:
But it is interesting that you must think you are better than unbelievers and that your godly actions reveal that you are better than others who don’t do the same actions. It sort of reminds one of the proud Pharisee’s line of thinking (not that you are specifically rpoud) in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector: “The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers – or even like this tax collector” (Luke18:11; the NET translation in honor of this site). Notice he gives all the credit to God for the way he is, yet Jesus condemns his attitude nonetheless.
It also seems that you would have to apply that same logic to any act of yours in relation to other believers. So when you act better than fellow believers, it is because you have a better nature than they? That is also patently unbiblical. It would seem that your line of reasoning here just does not hold up.
“But it is interesting that you must think you are better than unbelievers and that your godly actions reveal that you are better than others who don’t do the same actions.”
Well said!
But I didn’t say I think that. I said that if I didn’t credit salvation entirely to God, I would have to think that it was partially due to me. Why else would some people accept God’s offer and some not? Or is it totally random?
And note that the difference between the publican and the Pharasee isn’t primarily the Pharasee’s arrogance or about his crediting his superiority to God; it’s the fact that the publican walks away justified. This is a parable about repentance for the forgiveness of sin, not a parable about how bad it is to be arrogant. Even a Pharasee will be saved if he repents.
-Wm
I said: “But it is interesting that you must think you are better than unbelievers and that your godly actions reveal that you are better than others who don’t do the same actions.”
wm tanksley (November 1, 2010 at 6:12 pm) said: “But I didn’t say I think that. I said that if I didn’t credit salvation entirely to God, I would have to think that it was partially due to me.”
I don’t see where you said that in conversation with me. But you did imply what I said of you. Look at your reasoning; you said: “the difference must be in the sinners; the ones who submit must be more willing to respond to grace, and therefore (in fact and deed) better people than the ones who did not respond.”
Your reasoning here–and it is your reasoning, certainly not mine or typical Arminian–implies that you think that responding positively to God’s grace means someone is in fact and in deed better than the ones who did not respond.
wm tanksley said: “And note that the difference between the publican and the Pharasee isn’t primarily the Pharasee’s arrogance or about his crediting his superiority to God; it’s the fact that the publican walks away justified. This is a parable about repentance for the forgiveness of sin, not a parable about how bad it is to be arrogant.”
That’s an interesting take when the text actually tells us it has to do with arrogance: “Jesus also told this parable to some who were confident that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else” (Luke 18:9; NET). Moreover, the parable make it clear that the tax collector was humble, especially in contrast to the proud Pharisee. The parable certainly is about repentance for the forgiveness of sins. But it is also clearly about how humility (and implicitly, its concomitant, faith) is foundational for repentance, while pride is miles away from repentance and the forgiveness it finds with God. The spirit of this text is at odds with what it seemed you were implying (see above).
By the way, wm tanksley, I think I see what you were intending now, though not stated explicitly in your discussion with me I think, that if God does not irresistibly cause a person’s positive response, then in your view it would come from the person alone and make that person better. But that assumes your whole Calvinistic/deterministic point of view and essentially begs the question again if it was meant to support your point of view, a point I have already addressed.
Arminian: I’m glad you see what I’m saying now. Your error was in assuming that I was boasting about myself, when I was actually stating a consequence of Arminianism as it’s often held: that if one decides that one is saved from judgement by a good action while another isn’t due to lack of good action, then one should be judged praiseworthy while another should be condemned.
This is a fundamental aspect of many people’s view of Arminianism, and it follows whenever people adopt it in order to avoid a perceived “unfairness”, an accusation that’s often levelled against the doctrines of free Grace: that God is unjust to judge people when those people were not able to obey His perfect Law. Whenever you hear that “should implies can” to protest against humanity’s moral inability, you’re hearing the seed of this fallacy.
I don’t believe that this fallacy is universal among Arminians; it seems that way to a Calvinist because the argument is reflexively employed as a defense against Calvinism without realizing what it implies.
-Wm
wm tanksley (November 3, 2010 at 6:37 pm),
Your comments were sort of odd. While I indicated I understood what you were saying, I also indicated that your comments were question-begging and erroneous.
Arminian, you may think my comments odd, question-begging, and erroneous; but I’d say you need to show that about my comments, not just say it.
It looks as though your comments have been directed against a simple miscommunication between us: you read that I was taking credit for my salvation, when I was actually trying to explain why a typical use of a particular Arminian argument resulted in contradiction to the Bible’s explanation of grace.
So now that miscommunication is dispelled; whether my comments are “sort of odd” or not, the “error” you thought you’d found wasn’t actually there.
So now it’s time to move on; either say “well, I’m glad you’re not making that particular error”, or point out a different error so we can discuss it.
-Wm
wm tanksley (November 4, 2010 at 8:07 am),
What I thought odd about your comments is that they came off as if my indicating that I understood what you were saying signalled agreement with you. What I indicated was that I understood what you were saying, but that I disagreed with you and that your comments begged the question.
It seems like our conversation has become unfocused or something. Perhaps I should refocus it by trying to put the original matter of disagreement as simply as possible and as I stated it earlier:
The disagreement is over your claim that the person who accepts God’s grace cannot be totally depraved, which is a claim that he cannot be in a state that keeps him from believing *on his own*. By definition, the Arminian view defies your claim, since it believes the person cannot believe *on his own*.
“The disagreement is over your claim that the person who accepts God’s grace cannot be totally depraved, which is a claim that he cannot be in a state that keeps him from believing *on his own*. By definition, the Arminian view defies your claim, since it believes the person cannot believe *on his own*.”
It’s fine to say that man can’t believe on his own. That’s correct. But your soteriology is based on a grace that is uniformly spread so that man CAN believe without any further help. Man’s total depravity is for you a legal fiction — it’s something that’s true, but has no impact whatsoever to any man at any time.
This view also ignores the fact that obeying God’s call (accepting God’s grace) is a GOOD action, not a morally neutral one. It’s a good response to grace, the right thing to do. The bad thing for one to do is to resist the grace — you’d be rightly condemned for that.
-Wm
wm tanksley said: “It’s fine to say that man can’t believe on his own. That’s correct. But your soteriology is based on a grace that is uniformly spread so that man CAN believe without any further help.
**** First, that’s not true that my or Arminian soteriology necessarily holds grace to be uniformly spread. Nevertheless, it does hold that man can believe with the help of the grace that is given to each man when such grace is given. But even if it did believe it to be uniformly spread, your point that it enables man to believe without *further help* is completely without force. So what? That doesn’t negate that it is the grace of the Lord that enables the belief. Therefore, you have no grounds to say that Arminian theology holds that people can believe on their own. It is of no effect to claim, “even though they get God’s grace to enable them to believe, they don’t get more extra grace from him on top of that.” So what? Your claim amounts to saying that Arminian theology has people believing on their own. That is just not the case by your own tacit admission (note your own use of the words “further help”). Hence, Arminian theology is not at odds with the doctrine of total depravity in the least.
wm tanksley said: “Man’s total depravity is for you a legal fiction — it’s something that’s true, but has no impact whatsoever to any man at any time.”
**** This statement is also not true. Total depravity has pkenty of real life effect in the view of Arminian view. Moreover, even with respect to belief, the fact that God has to take the initiative and has to dispense prevenient grace also negates your statement. Since real life, actual action is taken by God to overcome total depravity’s barring of people from believing, it cannot be said to be a legal fiction.
Continued from last post:
wm tanksley said: “This view also ignores the fact that obeying God’s call (accepting God’s grace) is a GOOD action, not a morally neutral one. It’s a good response to grace, the right thing to do. The bad thing for one to do is to resist the grace — you’d be rightly condemned for that.”
**** This is another incorrect statement. The Arminian view does not ignore this point. Rather, it simply points out that Scripture makes clear that faith is not a meritorious action and that it precludes boasting by its very nature as the reception of a free gift and as focusing all glory on its object (Christ/God). Therefore, your point here also is of no effect. Moreover, accepting God’s grace is a good, non-meritorious action that is enabled by God. So it is again not something one does on his own, but by God’s grace.
I quickly and easily found several Arminian churches that do so believe; I’ve debated many who make that a central point against Calvinism. I’ve never met or found any who don’t. I don’t have a problem with that; I’ve just never seen it before. I’m curious why your doctrine of prevenient grace leaves gaps. Does God choose people to NOT give grace to?
Keep in mind that I’m not attempting to claim that the Arminian doctrine of resistible prevenient grace is false. I’m only showing that it’s not compatible with the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Arminians have a doctrine called Total Depravity; and Augustinians have a doctrine called Prevenient Grace. But Augustinian Prevenient Grace is irresistible (and thus is NOT the same doctrine as that known by the same name for the Arminians), and Arminian Total Depravity is also conquered even for unsaved humans to the point that they can make a free decision to honor God (and this is not the same as Calvinist’s Total Depravity).
I’m not saying it’s a wrong doctrine. I’m saying it’s a different doctrine with the same name.
I deny that “Scripture makes clear that faith is not a meritorious action.” Faith is nowhere or in any way in the Bible described as without merit. Faith — saving faith, the sort that is living — is meritorious. Only dead faith has no merit, and dead faith is in no way related to the Christian life. The promises of salvation are conditioned on faith; faith makes it possible to please God. If a man were to have faith, and God were to NOT save that man, God would be unjust, because the man had merited salvation, according to a number of promises.
Grace, on the other hand, is clearly and repeatedly described as not based on merit. Its definition is purely non-meritorious. Grace that’s conditioned on some prior action by the recipient is a contradiction in terms. “Otherwise grace is no more grace.” God does not give grace based on any action or merit; in particular, He does not give grace in response to our faith.
-Wm
Sorry, I missed your respsonses until recently.’
Wm said: “I quickly and easily found several Arminian churches that do so believe; I’ve debated many who make that a central point against Calvinism. I’ve never met or found any who don’t. I don’t have a problem with that; I’ve just never seen it before. I’m curious why your doctrine of prevenient grace leaves gaps. Does God choose people to NOT give grace to?”
**** Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by “uniformly”. I took you to mean that all people get the exact same amount of grace or something like that. God gives his grace to all. But there are differences among Arminians about prevenient grace, however that’s another topic.
Wm said: “Keep in mind that I’m not attempting to claim that the Arminian doctrine of resistible prevenient grace is false. I’m only showing that it’s not compatible with the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Arminians have a doctrine called Total Depravity; and Augustinians have a doctrine called Prevenient Grace. But Augustinian Prevenient Grace is irresistible (and thus is NOT the same doctrine as that known by the same name for the Arminians), and Arminian Total Depravity is also conquered even for unsaved humans to the point that they can make a free decision to honor God (and this is not the same as Calvinist’s Total Depravity).
I’m not saying it’s a wrong doctrine. I’m saying it’s a different doctrine with the same name.”
**** Ok, but that is not how theologians typically define the doctrine of TD. It has a more basic definition that Arminians and Calvinists agree on (that sin impacts every aspect of the person), but construe its implications differently along the lines you outline here. Moreover, as I said, you have no grounds to say that Arminian theology holds that people can believe on their own. It is of no effect to claim, “even though they get God’s grace to enable them to believe, they don’t get more extra grace from him on top of that.” So what?…
Sorry, Wm, I didn’t see your last responses until recently.
Wm said: “I quickly and easily found several Arminian churches that do so believe; I’ve debated many who make that a central point against Calvinism. I’ve never met or found any who don’t. I don’t have a problem with that; I’ve just never seen it before. I’m curious why your doctrine of prevenient grace leaves gaps. Does God choose people to NOT give grace to?”
**** Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by “uniformly”. I took you to mean that all people get the exact same amount of grace or something like that. God gives his grace to all. But there are differences among Arminians about prevenient grace, however that’s another topic.
Wm said: “Keep in mind that I’m not attempting to claim that the Arminian doctrine of resistible prevenient grace is false. I’m only showing that it’s not compatible with the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Arminians have a doctrine called Total Depravity; and Augustinians have a doctrine called Prevenient Grace. But Augustinian Prevenient Grace is irresistible (and thus is NOT the same doctrine as that known by the same name for the Arminians), and Arminian Total Depravity is also conquered even for unsaved humans to the point that they can make a free decision to honor God (and this is not the same as Calvinist’s Total Depravity).
I’m not saying it’s a wrong doctrine. I’m saying it’s a different doctrine with the same name.”
**** Ok, but that is not how theologians typically define the doctrine of TD. It has a more basic definition that Arminians and Calvinists agree on (that sin impacts every aspect of the person), but construe its implications differently along the lines you outline here.
Conitnuing from my last post:
Moreover, as I said, you have no grounds to say that Arminian theology holds that people can believe on their own. It is of no effect to claim, “even though they get God’s grace to enable them to believe, they don’t get more extra grace from him on top of that.” So what? Your claim amounts to saying that Arminian theology has people believing on their own. That is just not the case by your own tacit admission (note your own use of the words “further help”).
Wm, said: “I deny that “Scripture makes clear that faith is not a meritorious action.” Faith is nowhere or in any way in the Bible described as without merit. Faith — saving faith, the sort that is living — is meritorious. Only dead faith has no merit, and dead faith is in no way related to the Christian life. The promises of salvation are conditioned on faith; faith makes it possible to please God. If a man were to have faith, and God were to NOT save that man, God would be unjust, because the man had merited salvation, according to a number of promises.”
**** This is simply shocking and at odds with standard Reformed, and indeed both Calvinist and Arminian thought, and even more broadly, Protestant thought. Faith is not meritorious. It does not earn anything. It receives a free gift. Romans 3 and 4 are pretty definitive on this for just one place in Scripture. From what you say here, you seem to think that we earn salvation by our faith, but that only those God graces to do so earn salvation. That is beyond unsound in terms of doctrine. Even John Piper teaches that faith is not meritorious. He explains here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/is-faith-meritorious (Or check out this sermon by him, which deals more with the text of Scripture: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1999/1081_Justification_by_Faith_is_the_End_of_Boasting/; or this one: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1980/249_How_Is_It_Right_to_Justify_the_Ungodly/). Or, given the site we are on, as Dan Wallace explains in his grammar: “On an exegetical level, I am inclined to agree with Lincoln that “in Paul’s thinking faith can never be viewed as a meritorious work because in connection with justification he always contrasts faith with works of the law (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2-5, 9, 10; Rom 3:27, 28)” (A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC] 111)” (p. 335 note 53).
Wm said: “Grace, on the other hand, is clearly and repeatedly described as not based on merit. Its definition is purely non-meritorious. Grace that’s conditioned on some prior action by the recipient is a contradiction in terms. “Otherwise grace is no more grace.” God does not give grace based on any action or merit; in particular, He does not give grace in response to our faith.”
**** Both grace and faith are non-meritorious and fully intertwined. Of course God gives grace in response to any number of things, particularly faith. Is not salvation an expression of God’s grace? Indeed, faith gives us access to God’s grace! As Rom 5:1-2 says, “Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand . . .” (NET). Moreover, faith makes reception of the promise to be by grace (Rom 4:16). God gives blessing in response to faith, and this is grace precisely because faith receives a free gift.
Hey, cool — thanks for the response.
I’m glad to see I was just misunderstanding you on the extent of prevenient grace under Arminianism. Thanks for clearing that up. (It’s made some of my discussions very difficult, since I couldn’t assume that the person I was talking to believed prevenient grace applied to all mankind!)
I’ll keep your replies in my queue; hopefully I can clear up some of my OWN miscommunications. I hope you’re watching this through an RSS reader so you don’t have to check every day :-/. It’ll take me a while to get to them, since I’m swamped.
-Wm
Hi Dan,
You bring up Norman Geisler. In his book “Chosen But Free”, Dr. Geisler states that his flavor of “moderate” Calvinism is representative of other key dispensationalists like “L. Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, C.C. Ryrie”. [CBF, 54, 257]. Do you agree?
Arminian, you’re right to observe that faith is always contrasted to the works of the law; but I still have to insist that if faith is something that we are responsible to bring about in ourselves, it is a work; and if it is a work, it is meritorious. Because Arminians insist that humans are responsible to produce a right response to grace (by the response of faith), therefore humans are asked to perform a good work (to bring about faith in response to God’s grace) in order to be saved.
Calvinists agree with you that faith is not a meritorious work, not because faith isn’t a right response, but rather because it is not a response at all, but rather a creation of God. There is no effort of will one can make to go from not believing that “God exists and rewards those who seek Him” to believing that. The natural man cannot see the things of God. The sort of belief that a natural man can simply conjure up isn’t faith; it’s something less.
Man, it’s hard to respond in only 1000 letters. I wanted to also thank you for decrying the heresy I left open in my previous comment — the heresy that faith wins salvation because it is a meritorious work of man. I meant to be controversial, but I didn’t intend to leave THAT open. I do believe that faith is meritorious, but I do not believe it does, in fact, originate in man; it is rather a gift, and is ours only because it is given.
Andre, I hope you get a response; I’m curious too. I loaned out my copy of “The Potter’s Freedom”, so I don’t remember whether White responded in that. I personally don’t think it makes a difference to Wallace’s point, but it is an interesting question.
I do agree entirely that Arminians generally claim Total Depravity as one of their doctrines. I admit, further, that some thoughtful Calvinists have accepted that claim, and I assume that they did so after careful study. Thus, the evidence is well on your side.
I just don’t understand it at all.
How can one claim that “sin impacts every aspect of the person”, and at the same time claim that man is at liberty to choose or reject God, without impact from that depravity? It seems to me that this absolutely requires man’s will to be partially healed of depravity.
-Wm
Wm,
“man is at liberty to choose or reject God”
It might be more accurate to say prevenient grace enables us to accept God’s choosing of us as opposed to enabling us to simply choose God outright.
Graciously said, Michael! I like that a lot. This matches much better with the Arminian model of salvation than my statement did, from my biased understanding.
I think my objection remains, though: the effect of prevenient grace is precisely to indiscriminately undo the “totality” of total depravity. I’m not saying that’s bad; I’m saying that it doesn’t make sense to me to assert that one holds the doctrine of “total depravity”, but then mention that no human has ever actually lived in a state of actual total depravity, because God retroactively removed it.
As one of the greats once said: “There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do.”
-Wm