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)"
Wm said: “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.”
**** Surely you do not deny that it is we who believe, right? God does not believe for us. Moreover, surely you agree that we are responsible to believe, right? The Arminian position does not hold that we are responsible to bring about faith in ourselves. We cannot believe on our own. We need God’s help to be able to believe. And our believing is done by his strength. But it is not he who believes. We actually believe. But in any case, faith is simply not meritorious because it does not do anything to earn that which it receives, but receives a free gift. Paul is clear in Rom 4:4-5. By its very nature, faith is non-meritorious. See the next post.
Continued from last post:
Your reasoning would suggest that receiving a free gift is actually meriting the gift. That seems absurd.
Wm said: “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.”
**** But Arminians do not “insist that humans are responsible to produce a right response to grace”. We are responsible to respond rightly. That might sound like nitpicking, but the language you are using seems framed specifically to paint the act of trusting as a work that is produced. But Scripture (and common sense) are clear that while trusting is an act, it is not a “work” in the theological-biblical sense.
Wm said: “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.”
***** Ok, here it seems your position is so obviously wrong that just pointing it out should make it’s error clear for most people. You are claiming that faith is not a response to God’s word? You make it seem that faith is not a human act or something we do. We may have to agree to disagree because of the utterly basic nature of the assertion that faith is something we do (which Calvinists generally agree with; you would be extremely unusual to deny this point Arminians and Calvinists agree on ) and that it is a response to God and his word. It can be demonstrated from Scripture pretty easily, e.g., “and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:30-31).
Wm said: “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.”
**** It is not a matter of “effort of will”, but it is is a matter of God enabling us to believe without forcing us to believe (or irresistibly causing us to believe if you prefer).
Wm said: “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.”
**** But God is powerful enough to enable the natural man to see the things of God. Moreover, the natural man does not conjure up faith. God resistibly incites faith in the natural man. He workls in such a way that the natural man may believe or continue not believing.
Wm said: “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.”
**** But you do not rescue yourself from heresy here. You in fact deny justification by faith. For your position has us doing something (believe) that merits salvation. It doesn’t matter if you think that God grants that action to us. You still have us doing something that merits salvation. On your view, there is no difference between faith and works in principle. For the thing that you think makes it ok for faith to be meritorious without any reason to boast is that God irresistibly causes faith. See the next post.
Continued from last post:
But then on that reasoning, God could irresistibly cause us to do good works and save us by us doing good works without any substantial difference, since the only principle precluding boasting for you is God irresistibly causing our actions. This is would be a problem for you’re your view even if you recant your belief (which I must stress is in gross contradiction to Scripture and even Calvinism and Protestantism!) that faith is meritorious. But that view, ironically, sounds Roman Catholic!
Wm said: “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?”
**** Well, there is no claim that ther is no impact from that depravity. But the important point is that God enables us to overcome that depravity, to do womething that our depravity would not otherwise allow us to do. He does not change our nature, but enables us to believe against our depravity. It is like a man who does not have it in him to lift 1 million pounds. If he was given enough assistance, he could lift that weight without the weight being lifted apart from his own action. The giving of assistance to him would not change his nature. It would simply be assistance enabling him to do what he could not do on his own. Now do not grasp on to the “effort” aspect of the illustration. It shows how someone can receive assistance (think prevenient grace) and yet not be changed in his nature.
Wm said: “It seems to me that this absolutely requires man’s will to be partially healed of depravity.”
**** Again, think assistance rather than a change in the person. Again, if you have a man who is crippled, and someone helps him to walk across the room. The man has not been healed, but helped.
According to Robert P. Lightner, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at DTS,
“Chosen but Free is by far the best presentation of the moderate Calvinist viewpoint in print. This book deserves wide distribution but more than that, wide reading as well.” BSAC 157:625 (Jan 2000)
Does L. Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, C.C. Ryrie as well as the faculty of DTS share in Geisler’s flavor of Calvinism? Since the publication of CBF, I have not heard a concerted response from the faculty of the DTS or RCM. This concerns me.
“Surely you do not deny that it is we who believe, right? God does not believe for us.”
Of course we believe. That’s why we’re called “believers”. But are you sure that’s not God’s work? After all (for example), we exist, and yet existence is God’s doing, not ours. And look at Phil. 2, especially 13; “it is God working in you both to will and to work”. (Both “works” in verse 13 are the same Greek word, although they’re often translated differently as “working … to do”.)
The fact that we believe is something precious that we truly do own, and protect. But we did not begin believing because we willed ourself to start believing; rather, we began with the Spirit making belief possible; we cannot will ourselves to believe something against our own belief, and “the natural man does not see the things of God”.
(1000 characters is hard.)
-Wm
But in any case, faith is simply not meritorious because it does not do anything to earn that which it receives, but receives a free gift. Paul is clear in Rom 4:4-5. By its very nature, faith is non-meritorious. Your reasoning would suggest that receiving a free gift is actually meriting the gift. That seems absurd.
But faith is good, and a lack of faith is an evil — a violation of the greatest commandment. Faith is a necessary condition to approach God. The fact that faith is so vastly less than covenant righteousness doesn’t mean that it’s not meritorious at all.
You say later “while trusting is an act, it is not a work in the theological-biblical sense.” You’re right; it’s an act, but not a “work of the Law.” More to the point, it’s not fulfilling the entire law, which is the only way to merit Life through the Law.
So faith can’t merit salvation; we agree. But faith is meritorious, and faith believes God, and the natural man doesn’t do that.
-Wm
But God is powerful enough to enable the natural man to see the things of God.
Yes, He is.
But you believe that God did this retroactively for all men, don’t you (since you believe that prevenient grace applies to the entire world)? Then who was Paul talking about when he wrote that verse (1 Cor 2:14)? Why would he write something about a type of man whom nobody could ever meet — a man with a simple incapability?
-Wm
But you do not rescue yourself from heresy here.
THANK YOU for taking Christianity seriously and addressing it with honest terms. I disagree with your conclusion and will defend myself, but I agree that what you see as heresy is truly heresy.
You in fact deny justification by faith. For your position has us doing something (believe) that merits salvation.
No; faith doesn’t fulfill the entire covenantal Law, and so cannot merit the life that was promised to those who do completely fulfill it. Nonetheless, it is meritorious.
More…
-Wm
But then on that reasoning, God could irresistibly cause us to do good works and save us by us doing good works without any substantial difference, since the only principle precluding boasting for you is God irresistibly causing our actions.
YES! When we do good works as Christians, our response should not be boasting, but rather should be fear and trembling — because it is GOD who works. Of course, if God saved us by that means He wouldn’t be “saving” us; rather, He’d be rendering us meritorious of Life. It seems likely that the unfallen angels are in that exact position. (Can the unfallen angels boast?)
But that view, ironically, sounds Roman Catholic!
Not at all — because the merit of faith isn’t a saving merit; it’s simply a merit, not itself salvific. Faith in God is part of what the Law demands (the first commandment). God’s grace provides everything the Law demands, including faith.
-Wm
William,
It seems to me that faith and law are contrasted in the New Testament. They certainly are in the book of Romans. See Romans 10:4-6 for instance.
I don’t see how you can conclude that faith is a part of the law. That doesn’t seem to work for me.
Cheryl, Romans 10 speaks of the “righteousness based on faith”, which is my point: that faith is righteous. Faith, of course, isn’t inherently justifying; God’s work in justification is outside of us. But we are justified through our faith, and this is possible because faith is good.
The contrast between faith and the Law is possible not because faith is FOREIGN to the Law, but because faith is PRIOR to the Law. The Law is good and just; and therefore it includes the requirement for faith in every line. Keeping the Law is how to please God; but without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore the keeping the Law must require faith. But knowing that faith is required does not give us faith; rather, it tells us that, like the rest of the Law, we cannot achieve it on our own, and we must fall on our knees and repent.
-Wm
Well, there is no claim that ther is no impact from that depravity. But the important point is that God enables us to overcome that depravity, to do something that our depravity would not otherwise allow us to do.
If God enables everyone, then there is nobody disabled.
It is like a man who does not have it in him to lift 1 million pounds. If he was given enough assistance, he could lift that weight without the weight being lifted apart from his own action.
But we CAN fulfill the Law: see Deuteronomy 30. It is perfectly possible, well within our physical and psychological ability, plainly evident to us. The problem is not that we cannot, or that it’s too much for us. The problem is that positively REBEL and reject it.
Now, I understand that you’re being metaphoric; but it seems to me that your metaphor can’t stretch from “not morally strong enough” to “in active moral rebellion,” “blind to God,” and “dead.”
-Wm
But we are justified through our faith, and this is possible because faith is good.
Your line of reasoning here pretty much escapes me. This statement sounds to me like you are making faith the basis for our justification, not Christ’s sacrifice for us which is appropriated by our faith.
BTW, I wonder what happened to the feature that turned Scripture references into a link? It doesn’t seem to be working.
Good questioning, Cheryl. No, I’m not saying faith is not an operator in our justification; it’s something more like a conduit. That’s why I used the word “through”.
+ Solus Christus: Christ alone enacts salvation
+ Sola gratia: by His graciousness alone
+ Sola fide: through our faith alone
+ Soli Deo gloria: for the glory of God alone
+ Sola scriptura: according to the Scriptures.
(I used the word “graciousness” to emphasize the Reformed belief that God doesn’t offer grace as though grace were a thing we could take from him; rather, He acts graciously, and His gracious action is what saves us. To act graciously is to act without compulsion, freely, unobligated. The word “grace” is a wonderful word to use, but it’s been a bit diluted by traditional usage.)
-Wm
Wm said: “Of course we believe. That’s why we’re called “believers”. But are you sure that’s not God’s work?”
**** Arminians believe it is God’s work. God works it in us, but not irresistibly. The point is that you were talking as if God
Wm said: “After all (for example), we exist, and yet existence is God’s doing, not ours.”
**** Not at all analogous, since “existing” has a passive sense. I am not saying that it is in the passive voice, but that it has a passive sense. It is not a specific action we take or perform. It’s like saying “I have eyes”. Possessing eyes is not an active thing we do, but trusting someone is something we choose to do. Accepting an offer, like the gospel offer, is an active thing and a choice. It is accepting a gift.
Wm said: “And look at Phil. 2, especially 13″
**** Yes, a good example of how God works such things in us resistibly, the Arminian view. Do we always will and work according to God’s good pleasure? No. We sin plenty in opposition to God’s working in us to will and to do. Indeed, Paul gives this assurance of God working in us as the reason to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. So Paul is urging us to yield to God’s work in us, i.e., “work out your salvation because God is working in you to do so; yield to his work in you, which will enable you to do what I am urging you to do, to work for God.” But the very use of this as a motivation for doing it implies that it is not irresistible. It supports the Arminian view. Paul is encouraging his readers that God is supplying them with the power to do what Paul commands them to do. It is like saying to someone, “Get whatever you want on the menu, because I am paying”, or “Do this job because I am giving you what you need to do…
Wm said: “The fact that we believe is something precious that we truly do own, and protect. But we did not begin believing because we willed ourself to start believing; rather, we began with the Spirit making belief possible;”
**** That is the Arminian position. We do not begin believing because we merely will ourselves to start believing, but because the Spirit makes belief possible. Without that, we could not choose to believe (trust in Christ). However, he does not force us to believe. He does not irresistibly cause us to believe. He enables us to believe.
Wm said: “But faith is good, and a lack of faith is an evil — a violation of the greatest commandment. Faith is a necessary condition to approach God. The fact that faith is so vastly less than covenant righteousness doesn’t mean that it’s not meritorious at all.”
**** Faith is good, but not meritorious. It does not earn anything. As I said, faith is simply not meritorious because it does not do anything to earn that which it receives, but receives a free gift. Paul is clear, “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:4-5). By its very nature, faith is non-meritorious. Your reasoning would suggest that receiving a free gift is actually meriting the gift. That seems absurd.
Wm said: “You say later “while trusting is an act, it is not a work in the theological-biblical sense.” You’re right; it’s an act, but not a “work of the Law.” More to the point, it’s not fulfilling the entire law, which is the only way to merit Life through the Law.
So faith can’t merit salvation; we agree. But faith is meritorious, and faith believes God, and the natural man doesn’t do that.”
**** No, faith is not meritorious because it does not earn anything. Just because it is good does not make it earn God’s favor. Paul is clear, “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:4-5).
Wm said: Yes, He is. But you believe that God did this retroactively for all men, don’t you (since you believe that prevenient grace applies to the entire world)? Then who was Paul talking about when he wrote that verse (1 Cor 2:14)? Why would he write something about a type of man whom nobody could ever meet — a man with a simple incapability?”
**** I am glad that you agree that God is powerful enough to enable the natural man to see the things of God. Just because he enables people to believe the gospel when they hear it does not negate the fact that he has to work supernaturally for them to be able to believe. Every person that one meets is the type of person Paul mentions who cannot believe without God’s aid. Indicating this matches the truth and shows that no one can boast and gives glory to God.
But concerning 1 Cor 2:14, which you mentioned Wm, the natural man does not refer to unbelievers, but to anyone who is not submitting to the Spirit! The context is clear that Paul speaks to the Corinthian believers as unspiritual, fleshly people, who cannot understand the things of the Spirit, referring to advanced, mature Christian teaching. Paul says that he did not share such things of the Spirit with the Corinthians because they were fleshly and unspiritual, i.e. not submitting to the Spirit, and so unable to understand them. The things of the Spirit here does not refer to the gospel, which Paul had shared with them and they received. So Paul is not at all talking about unbelievers not being able to understand the gospel, but of anyone, particularly immature Christians who are not submitting to the Spirit, not being able to handle mature Christian teaching. See the next post for more . . . .
So 1 Cor 2:14 poses no problem for the Arminian view even with the idea that it speaks of unbelievers not being able to understand the gospel apart from the Spirit enabling them. The Arminian view holds that the Spirit must enable unbelievers to believe. But then, if one actually pays careful attention to the text, it turns out it is not even addressing that issue at all. So the Calvinist appeal to 1 Cor 2:14 fails doubly here.
Wm said: No; faith doesn’t fulfill the entire covenantal Law, and so cannot merit the life that was promised to those who do completely fulfill it. Nonetheless, it is meritorious.”
**** We may have to just agree to disagree here. But I think I have the vast majority of evangelical thinking and common sense on my side here. I guess I will be repeating my self to go over it again at this point. So seem y comments above again. Suffice it to say here that you seem to think that accepting a free gift is really earning it (or perhaps you are saying it is not necessarily earning the whole gift, but it’s earning something), which goes against all biblical and common reason.
Wm said: “YES! When we do good works as Christians, our response should not be boasting, but rather should be fear and trembling — because it is GOD who works. Of course, if God saved us by that means He wouldn’t be “saving” us; rather, He’d be rendering us meritorious of Life. It seems likely that the unfallen angels are in that exact position. (Can the unfallen angels boast?)”
**** Ok, so you admit that on your view, there really is no difference between faith and works. Do you not see how your reasoning wholly contradicts Paul’s? For him, faith and works are sharply at odds because one works and earns whereas the other trusts/accepts, and does not earn, but receives a free gift. “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:4-5).
Wm said: “Not at all — because the merit of faith isn’t a saving merit; it’s simply a merit, not itself salvific.”
**** Then what does it merit? Scripture is clear that faith does not merit but receives a free gift. You seem to be insisting on your opinion about what makes for merit and boasting rather than allowing God’s word to define this for us.
Wm said: “Faith in God is part of what the Law demands (the first commandment). God’s grace provides everything the Law demands, including faith.”
**** But faith is not a work of the Law! That is undeniable and something you yourself admit. And while God’s grace provides what the Law demands, it does not do so unconditionally nor irresistibly. God enables us to believe but does not force us to do so. He enables us to obey, but does not force us to obey.
Wm said: “If God enables everyone, then there is nobody disabled.”
**** That does not follow in the least. Total depravity is about human nature as sinful and incapable in and of itself. If every disabled person receives assistance to function in spite of their disability, their disability has not somehow gone away nor has their disabled nature changed. They simply get assistance to do what their disability precludes them from doing on their own. As I said,
It is like a man who does not have it in him to lift 1 million pounds. If he was given enough assistance, he could lift that weight without the weight being lifted apart from his own action.
Wm said: “But we CAN fulfill the Law: see Deuteronomy 30. It is perfectly possible, well within our physical and psychological ability, plainly evident to us. The problem is not that we cannot, or that it’s too much for us. The problem is that positively REBEL and reject it.”
**** Precisely because of the doctrine of total depravity, I would say that Deuteronomy 30 presumes God’s enabling grace. It is not saying, you can keep the Law on your own, but you can keep the Law (by God’s grace). It is similar to Paul saying that no one seeks for God. Obviously people do seek for God. But what Paul means is that no one seeks for God on his own. God must work in us for us to be able to seek for him. God must take the initiative. But it is a little surprising to hear you say that we can keep the Law. That contradicts normal Calvinist doctrine. Your position is that we can keep the Law? (I believe I know why you said what you did, but will allow you to state it rather than doing it for you.)
Wm said: “Now, I understand that you’re being metaphoric; but it seems to me that your metaphor can’t stretch from “not morally strong enough” to “in active moral rebellion,” “blind to God,” and “dead.””
**** Well, I wasn’t really using a metaphor, but an analogy. (But I don’t see why you don’t think it would stretch as a metaphor given the way Scripture uses the metaphors you mentioned rather than the way that Calvinists tend to take them.) The point is a relatively simple one. Just as one’s nature is not changed by receiving help to do something, so the totally depraved human nature is not changed by receiving help to do what it could not do on its own.
A quick recap:
My fundamental claim is that Arminianism collapses if the response that we have to the grace of the Spirit is a good work, since Arminianism distinctively claims that this response is something for which we are responsible (contra Calvinism, which claims that it is NOT our responsibility).
But think about it… What IS a complete keeping of the law? It’s clear that a complete keeping of the law would please God and be sinless, but without faith it is impossible to please God, and whatever is done outside of faith is sin. Therefore a complete keeping of the Law (which is the only way to keep the Law) includes complete faith.
Furthermore, what is the nature of the response? Is it not to “draw near to God” and to “diligently seek Him”? And isn’t this pleasing to God? True, it’s not faith that “draws near” or “seeks” (faith isn’t doing); but this must be done in faith, and if this doesn’t happen there never was any faith.
(more) -Wm
Thus we see that the response to the Holy Spirit is a righteous work, in fact the first righteous work the soul ever undertakes. It is not a work of the Law, since repentance from willful sin is not a work of the Law (look — there is no sacrifice to cover willful sin); but it is righteous in a sense older than and superior to the Law.
But since our righteousness is not of ourselves, and in particular the righteousness by which we are saved is not of ourselves, so also our response to the Holy Spirit (that response is righteous!) cannot be of ourselves, and therefore cannot be (in particular) “up to us”. If it were up to us, then we would have some reason to boast, not above the Holy Spirit, but rather above the unbelievers, who did not do that work of righteousness even though they were fully enabled.
-Wm (I wanted to clarify – your previous posts are good and deserve a response.)
Well, I wasn’t really using a metaphor, but an analogy.
Then you built an analogy that is not analogical. Man is physically incapable of lifting 1000 tons; the weight would shatter bones, tear muscles. The thing that can lift 1000 tons is not a man. But man is physically capable of fulfilling the Law (and more to the point, man lacks nothing that would make fulfilling the law impossible). The Law was made for man; it is customized for our condition. And Christ came as a man to fulfill the Law: He was like us in every way, save without sin.
The reason we do not obey the Law is that it is from God, and we hate Him. Your 1000 ton weight? We want to shove it into the floor, not lift it up. The Holy Spirit holding out His arms to help us lift it? We would crucify Him as well if we could. We DID crucify the Second Person, after all.
-Wm
Oh my William, do you realize what you just said??
But man is physically capable of fulfilling the Law (and more to the point, man lacks nothing that would make fulfilling the law impossible). The Law was made for man; it is customized for our condition. And Christ came as a man to fulfill the Law: He was like us in every way, save without sin.”
After all of this time you are telling us that man lacks nothing that would keep us from fulfilling the law? What ever happened to total depravity? You know that condition we are all in that makes it impossible to do anything but sin because that is our nature and impossible to seek God in any way?
Maybe I am totally missing your point here. But if you said what to all appearances you just said, you surely did say a mouthful for a Calvinist!!
Wm, it surely is analogical. When dealing with analogies, it is critical to pay attention to the point of the analogy and what is being compared, rather than objecting to peripheral elements of the analogy. It is a common and critical mistake with regard to assessing analogies. The point of the analogy is that doing something with help does not necessarily change a person’s nature, which undoes your argument that Arminian doctrine implicitly contradicts total depravity.
So Wm, you now seem to be denying the concept of total depravity yourself, which is often termed by Calvinists as being total inability (to believe or do anything spiritually good). You say we are able to keep the Law. So I wonder if we should leave this conversation off. It started with me responding to your charges against Arminianism holding to total depravity, but now you are basically denying the concept yourself. And you do not seem to agree with mainstream Calvinism (though I suspect that you may be using typical Calvinist double speak). I disagree that we can fulfill the Law on our own, but hold that we need God’s grace. Arminianism really embodies the biblical doctrines of grace. It is interesting that it is the Calvinist who seems to be inflating man’s ability and shortchanging grace.
Precisely because of the doctrine of total depravity, I would say that Deuteronomy 30 presumes God’s enabling grace.
This is half true. The Law itself cannot be fulfilled without faith in God and God’s grace. But God nowhere says that He sends enabling grace on everyone; thus, you cannot make this passage teach a doctrine that NO passage mentions.
But it is a little surprising to hear you say that we can keep the Law. That contradicts normal Calvinist doctrine. Your position is that we can keep the Law? (I believe I know why you said what you did, but will allow you to state it rather than doing it for you.
Yes, we can. I affirm that because it’s what the Bible says; denying it would contradict many Biblical passages. The Bible also says that we do not fulfill the Law, and that our “righteousnesses” are uncleanness. The question is, then, why we do not fulfill something that we can fulfill; the Bible says that this is because we hate the Light.
-Wm
William,
You have still denied the doctrine of Total Depravity by saying that we can. The “T” in “Tulip” that sets the foundation for your whole Calvinist theology.
Are you a Calvinist or are you not? Here I have spent years talking to you and you have defended Calvinism to the hilt! Now you are denying it’s first tenet? You have certainly left my head spinning!! 🙂
After all of this time you are telling us that man lacks nothing that would keep us from fulfilling the law? What ever happened to total depravity?
Total depravity says that man is corrupted throughout, not that man is missing something. We can see in the Biblical text what impact this depravity has: it does not make it impossible to DO the deeds the Law requires (Rom 2:4, for example, says that even Gentiles do the works of the Law), but it ensures, first, that we rebel against them; second, that even conformance to the words is tainted by our rejection of God to the extent that our works are loathsome to God; and finally that we typically fail to perform them adequately.
The last point fits Arminian’s analogy — the Holy Spirit does help us accomplish something that we’re trying to do but can’t quite figure out, or can’t muster the strength for. Total depravity affects those things too, and the Holy Spirit helps us in those ways. But “help” isn’t enough for…
… for rebellion.
-Wm
Guys, I see that I’m becoming hard to understand, and I apologize. I’ll be glad to try to clear things up; right now I’m just repeating myself, and you’re just telling me that I’m denying total depravity without interacting with my arguments. Now, of all people, I have the LEAST right to pretend to be offended by this (I started this entire thing by telling Arminian that I didn’t see how he could affirm Total Depravity, after all!!). So I’m not offended; I consider it fair play.
But I would like to see more interaction with my arguments.
Oh, also, Arminian, “(though I suspect that you may be using typical Calvinist double speak)” is not courteously spoken and should not have been said.
-Wm
William,
I’m still having a hard time believing what I am reading. For what you are now saying about total depravity is not what has ever been said by anyone about total depravity before that I have ever read. It has always been absolutely insisted upon that we can not do what God requires. Here is a defininition of total depravity that I found linked to from Monergism.com. It says:
The Total Depravity of Humanity: Human beings are born sinners with a sinful nature we inherited from Adam. We are born condemned, and our personal actions and choices only worsen our condemnation. We are dead in our sins and trespasses against God and His law. We are slaves to sin. On our own, we can do nothing that pleases God or has any real spiritual value. This does not mean that we are all as bad as we can possibly be. God’s common grace restrains us
from total chaos. Yet, we are thoroughly corrupted at every level of our being: mind, body, heart and soul…
Continued,
That was the end of the quote. The bolding was mine. It is from here: http://www.monergism.com/ThreePillars.pdf
And that is the way it has always been discussed here before. But now you are saying something altogether different.
William,
You do remember how you started this conversation, don’t you? You said, But man is physically capable of fulfilling the Law (and more to the point, man lacks nothing that would make fulfilling the law impossible). The Law was made for man; it is customized for our condition.
Seems to me that from everything I have ever heard about total depravity, he lacks everything for fulfilling the law because he is dead in sin and can only act according to that sin natue.
I think this will take a lot of clarifying to get this one all put back together again!
Wm said: ““(though I suspect that you may be using typical Calvinist double speak)” is not courteously spoken and should not have been said”
Oh, I’m sorry. I did not mean to suggest you were being deceptive. I guess “double speak” could give that impression. But it is a standard charge against Calvinism that its incoherence often drives its adherents to redefine terms and use them in contradictory ways. I suspected that that was taking place and that if we draw ouit the conversation long enough, you will be doing some heavy qualifying of your statements that will amount to something like, “we can keep Law, but we can’t the Law.” I should have expressed thatwithout using “double speak”.
As for interacting woth your arguments, I believe I have been doing so *in detail*, until just recently, when you seemed to begin denying total depravity yourself and I suggested ending the conversation. It feels like it has become unfocused and veered too much from the original focus.
Arminian, thank you for your clarification. I would point out that a slur like that against an entire group should not be left implicit, but should either be made explicit or skipped entirely. The double meaning of “double-speak” didn’t occur to me — I could see that your intended target was all Calvinists and not myself in specific, which in my opinion is the indefensible part; accusation of sin should be made against persons and not in general.
I agree completely that you had been dealing fully and fairly with my argument prior to my attempt to detail Total Depravity. We can stop chasing that rabbit if you’d like; I don’t mind. My point is simply that TD doesn’t mean that any single part of man is MISSING, but rather that every part and faculty is … bent. That twisting doesn’t mean that no part of the Law can be kept; rather, it means that we always sin. (to be continued)