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)"
It doesn’t mean that we are (metaphorically) physically incapable of lifting the weight of the Law; it means that we hate it, and we hate God; and when we DO try to keep it, we do so not because we believe God but because we want some other benefit. It’s also true that due to our depravity, when we try to keep it we’ll usually be more interested in something else, and therefore mess up our attempt.
The reason I made this claim is that I wanted to point out the incompleteness and injustice of your analogy with lifting a 1000 ton weight. There are simply so many other reasons why we stand condemned by the Law — the most basic problem is NOT that the Law is TOO MUCH for us. The most basic problem is that we HATE goodness; the fact that we keep messing up isn’t because the Law is too heavy or complex, but rather because we don’t love God who authored it.
…One more post, I think…
Now, look at John 9:41. If the Pharisees had been blind (unable to see the Light) they would not have been guilty of sin. Total Depravity therefore cannot mean that we are simply prohibited from doing some action by any condition. We can seek God; we can follow the Law. But our experience and the Bible reveals that we do NOT, and the Bible explains that we NEVER do (on this point our experience is sometimes deceptive). Original Sin explains the source and root of the problem; Total Depravity specifies that the scope of the problem is in the whole man, not in any one partition and not in any simple incapacity with respect to any attribute or command of God.
-Wm
William,
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Also please read Romans 7:7 to the end of the chapter. It is pretty well summed up in verses 19 and 23: For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. and, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
It certainly doesn’t sound to me like we are on capable of fulfilling God’s law as you have been saying. Do you read these verses and still think so?
Wm said: “The reason I made this claim is that I wanted to point out the incompleteness and injustice of your analogy with lifting a 1000 ton weight.”
Wm, I already answered this. I mentoned that 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, which you are making here. 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 because being aided to do something (believe) means a person’s nature has been changed.
See the next post . . .
Continuing: Wm, you now claim, against standard Calvinist and Arminian doctrine, that man can believe on his own. But you should at least admit that Arminianism is self-consistent on this point and also concede the point that one can be aided to do something without his nature being changed (which seems a quite obvious point that is shown by my analogy, and could be shown by many more). If I remember correctly, your original claim that got this started off between us was that if someone is helped to believe then that removes total depravity, changes the person’s nature. It seems to me that I have soundly refuted that notion. It is another point if you want to take Arminian theology(and standard Calvinistic theology for that matter!) to task for holding that people cannot believe on their own, but need God’s grace to be able to do so. For me that’s another conversation, and one I don’t really want to get into now in this thread,
I see I made a rather large typo in my last comment. Hopefully people could tell what I meant in spite of it.
I said, It certainly doesn’t sound to me like we are on capable of fulfilling God’s law as you have been saying. Do you read these verses and still think so?
It should say, It certainly doesn’t sound to me like we are all capable of fulfilling God’s law as you have been saying. Do you read these verses and still think so?
“Wm, you now claim, against standard Calvinist and Arminian doctrine, that man can believe on his own.”
Sorry, I need to finish a few things before I can reply, but I just wanted to apologize for having miscommunicated this (I don’t know where I said it, but since I’m trying to phrase this on my own, it’s likely that I messed up).
Unless you meant only that man can believe in the same way demons do, that’s not what I meant. HOWEVER, just as the demons can believe in facts about God, so can sinful man. (I’m sure that’s not how you meant it, of course, and so I needed to correct the misunderstanding, and apologize for having miscommunicated.)
-Wm
If I remember correctly, your original claim that got this started off between us was that if someone is helped to believe then that removes total depravity, changes the person’s nature.
No. My point was that if EVERYONE is brought to the point of being able to believe, that removes the doctrine of Total Depravity as anything more than a metaphysical curiosity. There is simply nobody to whom it applies against salvation.
To make this work, you have to accept the following, all of which I reject:
1. TD extends only to making us too weak to turn to Jesus, NOT too wicked to desire Him.
2. Coming to salvation does not involve morally praiseworthy actions on our part.
3. Doing good with help isn’t praiseworthy.
4. People can’t boast in doing good by comparing to others who have NOT done good in the same situation.
(Good summary and nicely done reversion to the REAL topic, though. Thank you.)
-Wm
Cheryl: “It certainly doesn’t sound to me like we are all capable of fulfilling God’s law as you have been saying. Do you read these verses and still think so?”
Thanks for asking — no, I don’t. I think there’s a distinction between doing the good works of the Law, and fulfilling the Law. The Law asks nothing of us that we are literally incapable of doing; but we are corrupted in a way that makes us never fulfill the Law.
I should also add: because we are totally depraved, we are placed in bondage to sin, which makes us slaves to it and dead to righteousness. I’m honestly not sure how this works with our human nature, but I avoid using that term. I don’t want to locate human sin in the human nature, because that would SEEM to falsely imply than Adam and Jesus did not have a fully human nature like ours. I’m not a philosopher, so I’m not sure about that and don’t want to tangle with it.
-Wm
William,
Thanks for asking — no, I don’t. I think there’s a distinction between doing the good works of the Law, and fulfilling the Law. The Law asks nothing of us that we are literally incapable of doing; but we are corrupted in a way that makes us never fulfill the Law.
Maybe this has become an issue of semantics, I don’t know. But to start with you didn’t qualify this as you are now. (If I am remembering correctly anyway.)
But is not our very nature currupted is such a way that we can not fulfill the law? The verses in Romans that I quoted would certainly seem to say so. And that is the way I have always heard it said from your fellow Calvinists also. I don’t think it is just that we will not but that we can not. That is why I don’t understand why you keep saying that we can but don’t.
Wm said: “No. My point was that if EVERYONE is brought to the point of being able to believe, that removes the doctrine of Total Depravity as anything more than a metaphysical curiosity. There is simply nobody to whom it applies against salvation.”
Well, I answered that, and I don’t recall you addrssing my response. I said that 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.
See the next post for more on this . . .
Conitnuing from my last post:
Similarly Wm, you said at one point: “If God enables everyone, then there is nobody disabled.”
And I responded: “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.”
Now, here is where you might want to raise your point that you do not think that total depravity makes people unable to believe. But that is not the point at issue, and so a rabbit trrail that we went down unnecessarily. Your logic is, if God enables everyone, then their disability (total depravity) is irrelevant. But it is not irrelevant to the point that they need the supernatural action of God to enable them and cannot do it on their own in the Arminan…
Continuing:
in the Arminian view. Now this is important because you seem to be trying to prove the Arminian view inconsistent within itself, or at least on its own principles making total depravity irrelevant. So you can’t object to its view that we can’t believe on our own to prove your point about this. Given the Arminian view, you say that it makes total depravity irrelevant. But I think that charge is obviously false given what I have said. It has a great deal of impact on those who are enabled, which is everyone. It doesn’t take away the fact that they couldn’t do it on their own nor somehow do away with the very real action God takes to enable them nor reverse their need for God to help them, nor negate the glory God is due in his enabling grace.
Maybe this has become an issue of semantics, I don’t know. But to start with you didn’t qualify this as you are now. (If I am remembering correctly anyway.)
This originally started on a different topic — you’ve pointed out that what I said would be inconsistent with what I believe in a different area, so I qualified what I said to explain how it’s supposed to be consistent. If I were a much better writer I’d never have to qualify or take back, but I’m not.
But is not our very nature corrupted is such a way that we can not fulfill the law?
Not in the sense of “cannot” we’re discussing here. Yes, we cannot in the sense that we DO not fulfill the Law; yes, we cannot in the sense that we do not desire any fulfillment of the purpose of the Law.
(I still don’t like using the word ‘nature’. Christ took on our nature, and DID fulfill the Law and its purpose. It’s not our nature that stops us; it’s us.)
-Wm
Now, here is where you might want to raise your point that you do not think that total depravity makes people unable to believe.
That wasn’t my point. My point was that total depravity makes people unable *in every way* to believe — not merely because our best efforts are insufficient (although they are, when we bother to make a “best effort”), but also (for one thing) because we “hate the light” (to use John’s words). We cannot cooperate with the Holy Spirit while hating the light — and men DO hate the light.
If Christ’s work on the cross through prevenient grace somehow cleansed all men of hatred of the light, then He removed the stain of Total Depravity from part of us. That may (for the sake of argument) be true; but it’s not consistent with claiming that total depravity is real. If it’s true, we are partially depraved.
-Wm
William,
As I said above, Romans 7:19 says, For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
And Romans 7:23 says, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Couple that with Romans 8:7-8: For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Is that person that is captive to the law of sin and does what he doesn’t want to do, the one that is in the flesh and can not please God capable of fullfilling the law? I certainly do not see how.
Wm said: “If Christ’s work on the cross through prevenient grace somehow cleansed all men of hatred of the light, then He removed the stain of Total Depravity from part of us. That may (for the sake of argument) be true; but it’s not consistent with claiming that total depravity is real. If it’s true, we are partially depraved.”
Some Arminians believe that prevenient grace blanketly enables all to believe and counteracts total depravity always for everyone. However, most Arminians probably believe that prevenient grace is given to people with God’s specific movements towards them for faith. So it would not blankelty cleanse all of their hatred toward God. But very importantly there is not even a claim that prevenient grace cleanses people from their hatred of God. What it does is enable them to turn from their hatred for God. So prevneient grace is very much consistent with total depravity. It is the thing that enables us to believe despite total depravity, even though we are
continuing last comment: totally depraved (not that I would grant your reasoning even if I agreed that prevenient grace automatically cleansed our hatred for God).
Cheryl, I don’t see how I haven’t answered this question many times already. You cited all of these (except Romans 8 ) in an earlier question.
I will say that Rom 8 is new to the discussion — “indeed it cannot” would appear to identify a specific locus of infection, that if only we could use something other than our mind we’d be free to serve God (a mistake modern mystics make)… But there’s an error in this thinking, since this passage isn’t about our mind in general; it’s about our mind at its worst, when it’s “set on the flesh”. Our mind is ALWAYS as depraved as the rest of us; worse, our mind when “set on the flesh” is INCAPABLE. That doesn’t render us blameless, since we set our mind on the flesh in the first place.
My point: that our problem is not a mere local incapacity. It’s a global, overall, general, complete, total soaking in sin. And it’s not merely a matter of assigning credit for good; it’s real and hinders us even now.
-Wm
William,
I simply do not understand your position. You say in one breath that we are totally soaked in sin and don’t fulfill the law. And in the next breath you seem to be saying, and have said in so many words, that we are capable of fulfilling it.
But the verses in Romans 7 say we are slaves to sin and don’t do what we want to. Is that someone that is capable of fulfilling the law? I don’t think it is.
I also mentioned Jeremiah 17:9, The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick: who can undersand it? Again, can a person with this heart be capable of fulfilling the law?
BTW, I did bring up the Romans 8 verses before. But you may be right that they don’t prove my point.
You are the only person I have ever heard that maintains we are capable of keeping the law and just don’t do it. That is why I have kept pressing this. That and the fact that it doesn’t fit the definitions of DT I have read anywhere else either.
Cheryl –
I’m finding William a little hard to follow too and almost self-contradictory at times, but Romans 2:14-15 opens the door to the idea that there is at least some capacity to (intuitively) fulfill the law: Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
This may perhaps explain how someone like Cornelius raised in the pagan Roman culture and not taught about Yahweh (at least not from what the text reveals) could be called ‘an upright (Gk. lit. ‘just’) and God-fearing man’ (Acts 10:22). Also Jesus’ statement in Luke 11:13 though not in a strict ‘law fulfillment’ sense. I know committed Calvinists would disagree with this.
(Cont…) However neither Rom 2 nor Acts 10 lend credence to the notion that we can fulfill the law all the time. Partial fulfillment, even 99% falls short of the mark of God’s requirement for total obedience and perfect holiness, and the 1% failure renders us guilty of breaking the whole law (James 2:10).
By virtue of the fact that Cornelius was asked to get in touch with Peter, would show that his goodness was not redemptive but he had to believe in the finished work of Christ like everyone else to be saved.
These points appear to refute the notion that we are ‘born God haters’ as some have asserted previously. Cornelius clearly wasn’t a ‘God hater’ (by the angel’s testimony). I see no clear biblical warrant that we hate God intrinsically, willfully and consciously with an emotional commitment to hatred. If it was so, Paul would have told the Athenians that ‘God overlooked our hatred towards him’, instead he said that he overlooked our ‘ignorance’ (Acts 17:30)
John from Down Under,
I agree with what you have said 100%. And I am glad you brought up the point about “god haters”. (Although I suppose some Calvinists would claim that Cornelius had been regenerated for a long time but was not yet saved. I have seen that type of statement made–though not about Cornelius).
William,
I am trying to clarify here since it seems you have confused more then one of us. You have said several times that we are capable of keeping the law–there is nothing within us that makes us not capable. But that our old man/nature won’t keep it because we are so affected by sin.
Are you saying we are capable of keeping the whole law–thus fulfilling it? That is certainly the way it has come across to me. That there is nothing within us that keeps us from fulfilling the law but that we never will?
William,
In comments # 17 and 18 on the previous page, you made two totally conflicting statements. First you said this: 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.
In the next comment you say: 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.
(Bold added in both comments.)
I have gone back through your comments since then. You try to clarify but still seem to be stating both things at different times. It can’t be both ways. So which is it?
I simply do not understand your position. You say in one breath that we are totally soaked in sin and don’t fulfill the law. And in the next breath you seem to be saying, and have said in so many words, that we are capable of fulfilling it.
I deliberately never said those actual words. I said that we have no single part of ourselves to blame; there’s no part of a human that is crippled in such a way that the rest of the human can point to that part and say “it’s to blame, not me!” I also said that EVERY part is at fault; there’s no retreating place where a human can point to say “this is the holy part, the real me; I am not at fault.”
So: every part depraved, no part disabled or missing. Man does not fulfill the Law _ever_, absent God’s help; without excuse. Does that mean man CANNOT? No, not in any way that affects that man “should” fulfill the Law; but yes, in that man does not at any time do so.
-Wm
William,
You just told me, “I deliberately never said those actual words.”
Yet in my last comment the words in bold, But we CAN fulfill the Law were a direct quote from you. You also said in the same quote, It is perfectly possible, well within our physical and psychological ability
And in another comment 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. And Christ came as a man to fulfill the Law: He was like us in every way, save without sin.
Maybe this is a matter of semantics, but I don’t see how. But your statements are hopelessly confusing to me. And your last one just as much so. For it appears to me that you have said more then once precisely what you just claimed you didn’t say.
At least there is comfort in knowing I am not the only one that you have confused here!
This may perhaps explain how someone like Cornelius raised in the pagan Roman culture and not taught about Yahweh (at least not from what the text reveals) could be called ‘an upright (Gk. lit. ‘just’) and God-fearing man’ (Acts 10:22).
“God-fearer” was what the Jews called gentiles who worshiped YHWH without converting (they discouraged converts and made the process even more painful than circumcision naturally makes it). This is why the Temple had a “court of the Gentiles”. So he _was_ taught about YHWH (and keep in mind that he lived near the center of the Jewish faith, so there’s no real way he wouldn’t learn given even faint interest).
Also Jesus’ statement in Luke 11:13 though not in a strict ‘law fulfillment’ sense. I know committed Calvinists would disagree with this.
I have to wonder why you think they would disagree. (And, with what — surely not with Jesus!)
-Wm
And another quote from Wm stating that we cannot believe even though he has also stated that we can believe:
“My point was that total depravity makes people unable *in every way* to believe . . ”
This is what I was getting at when I brought up the point about Calvinist double speak, though I should not have used that terminology. When I explained myself, I mentioned that 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 predicted that if the conversation went long enough, Wm would do some heavy qualifying that would amount to something like, “we can keep Law, but we can’t keep the Law.” I believe we are seeing that now.
One thing to note is how Wm equivocates “can’t” with “don’t”. But the two are much different.
However neither Rom 2 nor Acts 10 lend credence to the notion that we can fulfill the law all the time. Partial fulfillment, even 99% falls short of the mark of God’s requirement for total obedience and perfect holiness, and the 1% failure renders us guilty of breaking the whole law.
Yes, we mess up because the Law’s too perfect. But there’s more than that: even our righteousnesses are unclean things. So even the 1% is polluted.
By virtue of the fact that Cornelius was asked to get in touch with Peter, would show that his goodness was not redemptive but he had to believe in the finished work of Christ like everyone else to be saved.
Cornelius, like everyone saved under the Abrahamic Covenant, believed in YHWH’s ability to save. The fact that he recognized Jesus as the Christ proves this.
These points appear to refute the notion that we are ‘born God haters’…
Denying original sin? Are you Eastern Orthodox, or Pelagian?
-Wm
(Ran out of space!) … The EO deny Original Sin, but believe that every man sins. Pelagians go farther to say that we’re fundamentally able to imitate Jesus (the EO reject this emphatically). I’m not aware of any other major branch of the Church that rejects that we’re born God-haters.
-Wm
Cheryl, you’re right — I used the word “cannot” with two different meanings. I’ve explained why I tried not to do that above — there are many ways in which “cannot” could be taken, and I didn’t want to have to pick through them.
Thus, I’ve generally tried to say “do not” rather than “can not”.
Nonetheless, I affirm that humans CANNOT seek God. I deny that seeking God is beyond our abilities, though; God created us to seek Him.
-Wm
William,
I’m sorry, but if you want the rest of us to have a clue as to what you mean by CANNOT, I think you are going to have to give us the definition of it, in other words pick through it. As it stands, you are still sounding contradictory to me. Why is it that we can not seek him when we have the ability to do so? And please don’t say you already explained it, because if you did I didn’t understand it and obviously John and Arminian didn’t either. Can you try again please?
What is the ability we have that you say makes us able to do so? And why if we have this ability can we not use it?
One thing to note is how Wm equivocates “can’t” with “don’t”. But the two are much different.
Looks like I CAN’T communicate, then. :-/
I’m trying VERY VERY hard to ONLY use the word “don’t”. It’s not because I don’t believe in “can’t”; rather, I don’t want to sidetrack on what precise meaning “can’t” has. Instead I spend aeons sidetracking.
My meaning is: total depravity means NOTHING IN US escapes the stain of sin. It does not mean that anything in us is GONE or BROKEN. In particular, this means that there’s no way that “help” will allow us to do something to please God (as an action taken in faith would do!).
Look, it’s like this: Total Depravity is distinguished from Original Sin because it’s TOTAL. The Arminian concept is not total; it’s partial, because there’s enough left out of the corruption to allow us to respond.
-Wm
William, you responded predictably in vintage Calvinist fashion and took the route I expected you would. You said: Denying original sin? Are you Eastern Orthodox, or Pelagian?
There we have it. As soon as someone challenges the Calvinist mould he MUST be a Pelagian by default! You made the long leap in a syllogism that says “if you don’t believe that people are born intrinsically, willfully and emotionally committed to hating God (the terms I used) the only logical conclusion that follows is that they deny original sin”
None of us here deny that we are born sinful with an irresistible bent toward sin. However, I wanted to challenge the notion of ‘born God haters’. Let me clarify: In an overarching sense, we rebel against God without giving it any thought by virtue of our sinful disposition. But that’s not the same as the idea that EVERY person on earth throughout history until the point of regeneration, wakes up every morning and consciously goes about hating God.
CONT… (Michael hacked our rambling allowance to 1000 characters so it’s hard 🙁 )
Again I point you back to Acts 17:30. Was Paul being politically correct by not telling the Athenians that God overlooked their hatred towards him rather than their ignorance? Don’t you think hating God would have been a far more grievous charge to bring up than ‘ignorance’?
And finally regarding Cornelius, I assume you must be able to refer us to some reliable extra biblical sources that document what you said about him, since none of those details can be extracted from the text.
William,
So you are saying that nothing in us hasn’t been touched by sin and that therefore we cannot seek God? Is that correct?
But then you still say we have ability to fulfill the law. That nothing in us is broken or missing so we can’t. And that is the point where we depart. I believe that everything in us is broken by sins total effect on us to the point of making us slaves to sin. If we are dead in sin, however that is defined, we are certainly “broken” are we not?? And since Calvinists argue constantly that being dead in sin means there is no way we can respond to God, I don’t see how you can still insist that we have ability in any way. There is simply no way I can see that you can assert both and have it not be a contradiction.
Our very nature or old man is a slave to sin and we can’t be free of that old man without Jesus. How can an enitity/nature/old man whatever you want to call it have ability to fullfill the law? And that is who we are.
Cheryl,
William can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is making an age-old distinction that the early Christians made between critiquing gnostics, who believed that we were bound by our physical nature toward evil and futility, and critiquing pelagians, who argued that we are not bound by anything, physical or spiritual in nature, in our ability to respond to God positively. The former is rejected by all orthodox Christians. We have all of our faculties and physical ability to choose one way or another. The latter, however, is rejected by Christians on the basis that it ignores the fact that we our slaves to our desires, i.e., a spiritual condition gained from our lack of a salvific relationship with God that was rejected in the garden. Hence, we CAN choose positively in regard to our physical nature. We CANNOT choose positively according to our corrupted desires that bind us to our slave-master, sin. So we cannot overcome our desire to rule self and rebel. That must be a…
gift.
So we can do X and we can’t do X at the same time, but both for different reasons. What we cannot overcome is our enslavement to love our own immediate self fulfillment and lordship in order to give that over to God apart from the gift of faith/regeneration/grace given, since given the choice, we will always choose our greatest desire.
Hodge,
If what you are saying is correct, that makes some sense to me. If the difference is physical versus spiritual, that makes some sense. But it was never qualified that way in the last umpteen exchanges here. Since he kept saying nothing was broken or missing I assumed that had to include the spiritual.
Is Hodge right about what you are saying William?
John, I admit I asked an improperly leading and accusatory question, but you caught me off-balance by bringing in a foreign topic. We’re not discussing ranting emotional hatred of God; that’s a different discussion (and one on which I’d be on your side against some Calvinists).
There we have it. As soon as someone challenges the Calvinist mould he MUST be a Pelagian by default!
That’s a false accusation; look at my comments here for a complete refutation. And it’s phoney anyhow: if I were being a typical namecaller I’d call you a semi-Pelagian, not a Pelagian. I’m not doing that, since what I thought you denied was being born a sinner; semi-Pelagians accept that (when I’m namecalling I prefer “semi-Augustinian”, anyhow).
However, I wanted to challenge the notion of ‘born God haters’. Let me clarify
Then go to a thread where they’re talking about that, and challenge it there. It’s of no interest here.
-Wm
I agree with Hodge — and well put, Hodge.
If what you are saying is correct, that makes some sense to me. If the difference is physical versus spiritual, that makes some sense. But it was never qualified that way in the last umpteen exchanges here. Since he kept saying nothing was broken or missing I assumed that had to include the spiritual.
It does. Man is a spiritual being; unbelievers are not missing a part of themselves (spirit) that is granted to them on salvation. The Biblical concept of spiritual death is (as Arminians all know) not the same as the biological concept of bodily death; the implication varies in different passages, but it ranges from “not caring at all about the things of God”, to “not following God”.
Man’s body and man’s spirit are depraved.
-Wm
But are unbeliever’s spirits still capable of fulfilling the law William?
I’m sorry, but if you want the rest of us to have a clue as to what you mean by CANNOT, I think you are going to have to give us the definition of it, in other words pick through it.
I could explain it to you, but I don’t care about you enough to explain it. When your reasonable requests annoy me enough, I’ll start trying to explain it, and then my laziness gets in the way and my explanations don’t make any sense.
(I’m joking AND explaining by giving a practical example.)
Why is it that we can not seek him when we have the ability to do so?
We DO NOT seek Him. We WILL NOT seek Him. The closest we come to CAN NOT is our moral will — because we do not want to seek Him, it is morally impossible for us to do so. But we have every faculty we need to DO it.
What is the ability we have that you say makes us able to do so?
As humans, we are complex beings. We don’t have some kind of “ability to do Law”, as a thing that has a medical name.
-Wm
William let me start by saying that I have a lot of respect for people like you (truly) who belabor to enrich their knowledge of the Scriptures both in breadth and depth. I wish I had half your scholarly intellect.
However, I am a little amused by your sense of ‘ownership’ of the thread to dictate what points people can or can’t raise. Whilst you may be narrowly focusing on this particular discussion here, for an observer like me, all these discussions are excruciatingly repetitive and circular and more often than not end up where they started.
My point? The ‘God hater’ assertion is something that has often entered the discussion to accentuate the TD issue. If you read my comments again, you will see that I ended up there in a linear direction to conclude my point. So in this regard, it wasn’t a throwaway comment. Nonetheless, you reserve the right to ignore it.
Blessings.
William
I guess I am going to keep right on annoying the dickens out of you here then!!
So, is our moral will something that we are born with, something that came with the fall? Or is it something that we can change?
If it is something that we can change, then yes the only reason we don’t obey God is that we DON’T want to.
However, if it is part of the very makeup of man ever since it was given to all of humanity as a result of Adam’s sin, then not only do we not fulfill the law. But there is not any way that we CAN fulfill the law. Which is what I believe to be the case and it seems quite significant to me.
And it also seems to me that if you hold otherwise, you are going against any definition of total depravity I have ever read by any other Calvinist.
Cheryl you crack me up! I think Hodge and William will have nightmares of seeing you in the rear view mirror always chasing them…lol
John from Down Under,
Funny thing, I kinda noticed too that to some people the “God hater” thing had quite a bit of significance and ahem–interest.
I thought your points were not at all inappropriate for that reason and that it was something that did need to be brought up in light of the previous comments.
Maybe they don’t interest Master William 🙂 here, but they do interest some of the rest of us.
(Note to William: if you don’t want to be referred to as Master William, it would help if you didn’t “boss” others around here as you did John regarding this issue.)
Concerning comment # 46:
Well, seems like somebody has to do it! 🙂 Some issues just seem to need clarity, don’t you think?
Sorry, one more thing:
And finally regarding Cornelius, I assume you must be able to refer us to some reliable extra biblical sources that document what you said about him, since none of those details can be extracted from the text.
No need — Acts says that Cornelius “feared God” and was “well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation.” In addition, your suggestion that he’d never been taught about God is simply without precedent in Scripture, and goes against the “how shall they hear without a preacher?”
Cornelius almost certainly was a “Godfearing gentile” who worshiped in the outer temple court; but failing that, he was at least conspicuously devout towards Yahweh as the Jews taught Him. Either way, his type was common, and the Mosaic Law mentions it. (In fact, the regulations that the first Church Council in Acts passed that Gentiles were asked to observe were the major ones that the Mosaic Law required of all “Strangers in the Land” — but that’s a…
…a digression.
-Wm (sigh. So CLOSE to 1000 characters. What a challenge!)