Corporate Election in Christ

[VirginShallConceive]

If you didn't have a conception of the idea of unconditional election unto salvation, then maybe your mind wouldn't automatically reference this as the interpretation. You see we each bring our presuppositions to the text, but they must be weighed through proper exegesis.

I know. It makes you wonder how many Christians would get a Trinity without someone suggesting it to them first.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You "ramble" too much.lol You ask why does it have to be simple? I ask you why can't it be simple? So what you are saying is Jesus really didn't mean what he said....and you are going to explain to everyone what Jesus really meant.lol

What an odd statement.. of course Jesus meant what he said, but what matters is what he meant by what he said. Your statement seems to presume that Jesus meant what you believe it to mean, this has yet to be proven.

You asked, "why can't it be simple?" Please refer to my previous "ramblings" for several reasons why it isn't just "simple."

All you are doing is presuming, presuming and presuming without really arguing anything or demonstrating anything.

 

[reba]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself. moderator

Not necessarily directed at the last poster...

 

[P31Woman]

Introduction:

The Biblical doctrine of election has been framed as of late a bit like this: "Does elect so that someone will believe and so be saved, or does God elect because one believes and is thus saved?" This is a false dichotomy of the doctrine of election as there is a third and I would say even more Biblical alternative.

Formerly it has been understood at the foresight view election.. that God looks down the corridors of time and elects those who he sees are believing in Jesus and persevering to the end. The other view is the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election, this view holds that God decreed to save some of fallen humanity (Infralapsarian view.. leading view) to the praise of his glorious grace, not on account of any foreseen merit or goodness pertaining to the person, but according to God's purposes.

The view I will be espousing is Corporate Election.

God Elects a People:

I will attempt to make my points brief so that this might be easier to respond to..

1. God in the OT elected a people.. not persons. God's purpose in election I believe is not to choose who will or will not be saved, but rather who will be his people for his name, to fulfill his purposes in the world.. to be holy and blameless before him.

The OT this was represented by the Israelites, that those who wished to be apart of the people of God entered into the Covenant previously made with the Covenant Representatives of Israel.. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You see election to Israel was inseparable from the idea of Covenant. God elected 3 individuals, those previously mentioned, to be in Covenant with God and to produce a people for his possession, the nation of Israel.

This election was not absolute, the Covenant was sustained by the continuing sacrificial system and the obedience of the individuals in the Covenant. While God always remained faithful to the Covenant people, persons were indeed cut off for transgressing the Covenant they had entered into.

2. New Covenant.. Election in Christ for all who believe, Jew and Gentile. God's purpose in electing the nation of Israel out of all the other nations was not so that every nation might sink into sin and oblivion, but so that through Abraham's seed he might bless all the NATIONS.. GENTILES.

Ephesians 1-3 unveils the mystery of the gospel, that through the Messiah God has from the foundation of the world decreed that a people for his possession be found in the Messiah, that those who belong to Jesus are the elect.

That much like the OT Covenant God elected a Covenant Representative head, Jesus the Messiah. Those who are apart of the New Covenant family called the Church.. the body of Christ are the continuation of the people of God. Found anew in the Messiah. This extension to the Gentiles from the foundation of the world is proven through the promise of Abraham alluding to the future inclusion of the Gentiles, thus revealing God's purposes.

Conclusion:

Therefore, because God elects a people rather than persons, let us not regard ourselves as individuals in relationship with God. But always remember that we are members of one another and that God's expression of love for us, leads to a similar expression of love for the brothers. He laid down his life for us.. and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

For God has elected a people through Jesus.. and he has adopted a family through Jesus. We who are in Christ are those of that Covenant family membership, where we corporately find our identity in Him. Where there is neither Jew nor Gentile, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, nor any other distinction... but Christ is all and in all.

Blessings to you all.. look forward to your feedback,
Servant of Jesus

Maybe it would help if you and an educated Calvanist debate this issue. So far I don't believe a calvanists has responded to this thread. When I read the words "corporate election" my mind immediately went to liberation theology like, Latin America and BLT that Pres. Obama and family were baptised into.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Maybe it would help if you and an educated Calvanist debate this issue. So far I don't believe a calvanists has responded to this thread. When I read the words "corporate election" my mind immediately went to liberation theology like, Latin America and BLT that Pres. Obama and family were baptised into.

This position has nothing to do with liberation theology, it is not some fringe quasi-heretical position but is deeply evangelical and deeply Biblical.

 

[P31Woman]

Maybe it would help if you and an educated Calvanist debate this issue. So far I don't believe a calvanists has responded to this thread. When I read the words "corporate election" my mind immediately went to liberation theology like, Latin America and BLT that Pres. Obama and family were baptised into.

This position has nothing to do with liberation theology, it is not some fringe quasi-heretical position but is deeply evangelical and deeply Biblical.

To clarify............When I read the words "corporate election" in the title of this thread my mind immediately went to liberation theology and their teaching concering corporate/collective salvation.

 

[P31Woman]

BTW, I hold to both corporate as well as individual election. I believe Paul have them twined together in his letter to the Romans. ;)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

To clarify............When I read the words "corporate election" in the title of this thread my mind immediately went to liberation theology and their teaching concering corporate/collective salvation.

That appears to be what you are confusing. You are reading "election unto salvation" into what I am saying, I have not said this. I believe that election has to deal with the question of "who is God's people on earth?" Or who is the people whom God is accomplishing his purposes through?

While election can relate to salvation in a way, I don't think that is it's original OT representation, and I try to inform my understanding of the NT form of election by drawing on the OT understanding. As did the apostles.

 

[Grappler]

You "ramble" too much.lol You ask why does it have to be simple? I ask you why can't it be simple? So what you are saying is Jesus really didn't mean what he said....and you are going to explain to everyone what Jesus really meant.lol

What an odd statement.. of course Jesus meant what he said, but what matters is what he meant by what he said. Your statement seems to presume that Jesus meant what you believe it to mean, this has yet to be proven.
28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[h] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
You asked, "why can't it be simple?" Please refer to my previous "ramblings" for several reasons why it isn't just "simple."

All you are doing is presuming, presuming and presuming without really arguing anything or demonstrating anything.

Now now Doulous be nice...I guess i will just believe what Jesus said, which by the way, is very simple to understand...well at least for me. I will leave the analysis of simple statements and the twisting of there simple meaning to you Doulous. I will leave you with Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Now now Doulous be nice...I guess i will just believe what Jesus said, which by the way, is very simple to understand...well at least for me. I will leave the analysis of simple statements and the twisting of there simple meaning to you Doulous. I will leave you with Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So the simple reading of a passage is correct and anyone who attempts to understand it beyond that is twisting the Scripture? You ask me to be nice then come around and insult me personally?

Did not the moderator just come in here and ask us to respect each other? Attack my views, don't attack me, that is not what we are commanded to do by our Lord.

You're simply refusing to engage in looking at the merits of your interpretation versus mine, simply claiming victory and then quoting another proof text. If this is how you discuss in a Christian manner, then good day to you, we are done here.

If not I'd like to actually discuss the Scriptures involved in depth, and hold my own views (not myself) to scrutiny so that I might learn and possibly be corrected. Are you interested in doing this?

 

[Grappler]

Now now Doulous be nice...I guess i will just believe what Jesus said, which by the way, is very simple to understand...well at least for me. I will leave the analysis of simple statements and the twisting of there simple meaning to you Doulous. I will leave you with Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So the simple reading of a passage is correct and anyone who attempts to understand it beyond that is twisting the Scripture? You ask me to be nice then come around and insult me personally?

Did not the moderator just come in here and ask us to respect each other? Attack my views, don't attack me, that is not what we are commanded to do by our Lord.

You're simply refusing to engage in looking at the merits of your interpretation versus mine, simply claiming victory and then quoting another proof text. If this is how you discuss in a Christian manner, then good day to you, we are done here.

If not I'd like to actually discuss the Scriptures involved in depth, and hold my own views (not myself) to scrutiny so that I might learn and possibly be corrected. Are you interested in doing this?

Don't be so sensitive. We can go round and round on this issue and never come to an agreement. To me this issue is rather simple...to you it is not so keep studying. How about let us agree to disagree?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Don't be so sensitive.

It's just frustrating when a moderator comes in to remind us, and you then go right ahead and attack me. You don't even apologize, but rather ask me not to be so sensitive..

We can go round and round on this issue and never come to an agreement. To me this issue is rather simple...to you it is not so keep studying. How about let us agree to disagree?

Well I'm done discussing it with you.. but I'll leave you with this to think about.

Many of the texts that you believe support your position seem plain and simple to you. However, you and I seem to agree on the issue of the destiny of the wicked and there are several texts in that regard that require a much more thorough investigation that looks beyond the "natural" "simple" "plain" meaning and recognizes issues like:

1. Context.
- Textual
- Historical
- Canonical
2. Etymology of the words.
3. Literary Genre
4. Author's beliefs and intent
5. The audience being addressed

As well as other key questions, if we want to draw the truth out from the Scripture these are helpful areas to touch on so that we aren't reading into the words what we think, but we draw out of the word what was truly intended.

 

[Grappler]

Don't be so sensitive.

It's just frustrating when a moderator comes in to remind us, and you then go right ahead and attack me. You don't even apologize, but rather ask me not to be so sensitive..

We can go round and round on this issue and never come to an agreement. To me this issue is rather simple...to you it is not so keep studying. How about let us agree to disagree?

Well I'm done discussing it with you.. but I'll leave you with this to think about.

Many of the texts that you believe support your position seem plain and simple to you. However, you and I seem to agree on the issue of the destiny of the wicked and there are several texts in that regard that require a much more thorough investigation that looks beyond the "natural" "simple" "plain" meaning and recognizes issues like:

1. Context.
- Textual
- Historical
- Canonical
2. Etymology of the words.
3. Literary Genre
4. Author's beliefs and intent
5. The audience being addressed

As well as other key questions, if we want to draw the truth out from the Scripture these are helpful areas to touch on so that we aren't reading into the words what we think, but we draw out of the word what was truly intended.

Let us let scripture speak for itself...within context...in its most simple, straight forward meaning...let us not over complicate the simple even when it might disagree with our own preconceived beliefs and ideas. Have a nice evening Doul.

 

[P31Woman]

To clarify............When I read the words "corporate election" in the title of this thread my mind immediately went to liberation theology and their teaching concering corporate/collective salvation.

That appears to be what you are confusing. You are reading "election unto salvation" into what I am saying, I have not said this. I believe that election has to deal with the question of "who is God's people on earth?" Or who is the people whom God is accomplishing his purposes through?

While election can relate to salvation in a way, I don't think that is it's original OT representation, and I try to inform my understanding of the NT form of election by drawing on the OT understanding. As did the apostles.

Yep you are correct. I have a bad habit of jumping to "salvation" when I read or hear the word "election".

Until April 15th my brain has to be in numbers mode. I think this would be a great study!


Without really doing a good read of this thread the only think that jumps out at me is your last 2 sentences above and the fact that we do not have a record of everything Jesus taught the 12 or Paul so their understanding may be based on much more than we realize. (ignore this if I am off base....I freely admit I am kinda in another world right now until taxes are complete):help

 

[Sinthesis]

All throughout the bible there are concepts that can apply to people at either the corporate or individual levels. Sometimes both, depending on context. For example, is Israel a person or a people? When we confuse these two levels or don't even ackowledge they both exist, then we open ourselves up to all kinds of error.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

All throughout the bible there are concepts that can apply to people at either the corporate or individual levels. Sometimes both, depending on context. For example, is Israel a person or a people? When we confuse these two levels or don't even ackowledge they both exist, then we open ourselves up to all kinds of error.

Please cite where I fail to recognize that both levels exist. Read all of my remarks and then object please..

 

[Sinthesis]

All throughout the bible there are concepts that can apply to people at either the corporate or individual levels. Sometimes both, depending on context. For example, is Israel a person or a people? When we confuse these two levels or don't even ackowledge they both exist, then we open ourselves up to all kinds of error.

Please cite where I fail to recognize that both levels exist. Read all of my remarks and then object please..

Please cite where I've objected to any of your remarks in this thread.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Please cite where I've objected to any of your remarks in this thread.

Well, unless your post was arbitrary and directed at no one but rather to make an irrelevant comment that all agreed on, it seemed as if your comments were implied to object to the concept of Corporate election.

Am I mistaken? If so, what was the purpose of your comment?

 

[Sinthesis]

Please cite where I've objected to any of your remarks in this thread.

Well, unless your post was arbitrary and directed at no one but rather to make an irrelevant comment that all agreed on, it seemed as if your comments were implied to object to the concept of Corporate election.

Am I mistaken? If so, what was the purpose of your comment?

You are mistaken. The purpose of the comment is to validate corporate election, conditional on context, rather than an out of hand dismissal. Perhaps you should read it again. It is clearly not irrelevant, and given the other posts in this thread I doubt all would even agree with it. Some might even disagree just to disagree.