A reforming Calvinist's corporate elction questions

[21centpilgrim]

Brothers ans sisters in Jesus, I have been pretty strongly reformed or strongly leaned that way for the last 15 years or so. I have not completely discarded that thinking but am adjusting a bit. I have always held, except for a year or so, my 'Calvinism' lightly in that I saw my identity and the banner of my life to be Christ and not a man. I have interacted with Steve on the radio over the years different topics and about half of them were reformed in nature.

Anyways I read most verses about election ans see how they can be read with either a corporate view or an individual view and make sense. How can corporate election be reconciled with the following verses.

2 John 1:1 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

Rom 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Even passages that are speaking about obvious groups,ie. Jacob and Essau, groups are made up of individuals. So can there both both group and idividualistic election the both and, as opposed to either or?

[steve]

Good questions, and I wish I had time right now to answer all of them. Of course, there has previously been much dialogue on these boards about Acts 13:48. I might not address that here.

While it can be disputed, I have always believed that "the elect lady" to whom John wrote his second epistle is a reference to a congregation, rather than an individual. The whole epistle can be sensibly read with this idea in mind—and I think it makes better sense of the plural "you" that is frequently used in the epistle.

That a man may be said to be "elect in the Lord" is entirely in keeping with the idea that election is experienced by individuals only as they are "in the Lord." That is, everyone "in Christ" is "elect in Him," though no passages says that we or they were "elect to be in Him."

Many are called (that is, in my view, "everyone who hears the Gospel preached" have been "called"—as to a wedding feast), but few are "chosen," that is, the chosen group is smaller than the called group. This would be true, whether the chosen group were each chosen individually or as a group.

Those are my quick (and not particularly persuasive) thoughts, such as I can share them on the run between meetings.

Blessings!

[21centpilgrim]

Thanks Steve, I think that the Calvinist can believe in both the individual and corporate aspects of election, whereas the non-Calvinist cannot. It is because the very giving the possibility of individual election would give the whole 'doctrines of grace' some validity.

One of the frustrating things in the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate is that one must by into one 'system' or the other. One side can't really give credence to of the points of the other side without everything falling apart. Are the questions that being asked in the debate questions that you find the NT bringing up or answering straight forward? Did the apostles think in this manner in which today we are drawing up our lines of division upon? Both sides, at some point, answer with 'mystery' and the other side calls them on it as proof of being inferior and not the true apostolic or pure gospel.

I want to fear God more and know Him more. I want to hate sin more and love Christ more. I would rather loose an argument if that means I treasure the portion that cannot be taken away. I would love to win the argument and have the portion too

I will keep wrestling with these things and look forward to more interaction. His face towards you all.

[darinhouston]

I think that the Calvinist can believe in both the individual and corporate aspects of election, whereas the non-Calvinist cannot. It is because the very giving the possibility of individual election would give the whole 'doctrines of grace' some validity.

Folks referring to Calvinism as somehow uniquely the "Doctrine of Grace" has always offended me (I'm sure you meant no offense, just a comment on my part). Anyway, I disagree that we can't believe in individual aspects of election. I believe there are clearly individual "aspects." In many ways, as you suggest individuals are part of the corporate bodies, so there's a sense in which you are always referring to both, but what exactly is in mind when it comes to the predestination (specific individuals or their collective groups, generically) is not always delineated. I even believe that specific individuals have "callings" (which can be resisted or unfulfilled) and "elections" but predetermined eternal salvation is not always in mind -- I think specific individuals can be called or even predetermnined to fulfill certain roles in God's economy, and God can even ensure those callings as needed can be fulfilled, but that doesn't mean he uses such "force" or "compulsion" towards spiritual salvation. One can even argue that God's general redemptive plan can be set aside in special instances where His plans require it -- perhaps Paul is an example of this (arguably). Basically, I don't think it has to be so black and white and universal, but to accept certain individual aspects of calling, or election, or even predetermination, doesn't necessarily negate the way God has revealed to have generally chosen to deal with his people.

[darinhouston]

Did the apostles think in this manner in which today we are drawing up our lines of division upon?

I think that's part of the Calvinist's problem. I believe the apostles (and the culture, generally) was much more "collective" or "corporate" in their thinking and their writing than modernity's focus on the individual. So, I don't think they were as clear as they could have been if they had been writing directly to today's audience with this debate in mind.

[21centpilgrim]

Thanks Darin, I put the doctrines of grace in quotes when I first mentioned them because I did not want to offend. I never cared to be called a Calvinist because I was not and am not a follower of him, then I am left to use either a 'follower of the doctrines of grace' which some people take offense to or say that I am 'essentially reformed' which could also be offensive as coming across higher than tho. So I usually let my non-Calvinist friends label me as a Calvinist because they prefer that. The opposition likes to label the other side as is the case in history. It is unfortunate that a portion of those who say they believe in the doctrines of grace interact with non-Calvinist in such ungraceful ways, this is a sad thing indeed. It is equally sad that some non-Calvinist treat Calvinist like they worship a different God.

Anyways, I look at Paul, Jeremiah, Samuel, Abraham or the 11 disciples who the Lord specifically called and appointed. If you can say that these maybe special circumstances of individuals that could be the exception to God's general redemptive plan, then how can you be sure that other believers today can't be individually elected? I do not think that we, as mere men, can have such confidence. Who are we to say to someone 'your just part of the general plan, your not specific like the special ones'. I am exaggerating to make a point, not that we would really tell this to someone but I struggle with this assumption.

For the record I have changed my beliefs about eternal security in that I believe that the warnings in the NT against apostasy are real and the consequences are eternal, the statements of if we don't continue in the faith.... Col 1:23 or Rom 11 the warning to gentile believers of being cut off from the olive tree. This frightens my Calvinist friends because if I change on one part of system then it is a domino affect to them, I I can see why but I must submit to the scriptures and not a system. I can just declare mystery, right? I don't know and haven't figured this all out. I am secure in Jesus, He is all of my hope and peace.

[steve]

Anyways, I look at Paul, Jeremiah, Samuel, Abraham or the 11 disciples who the Lord specifically called and appointed. If you can say that these maybe special circumstances of individuals that could be the exception to God's general redemptive plan, then how can you be sure that other believers today can't be individually elected?

Hello Brother,

The persons named were definitely "elected," and so are others at all other times, including our own. The thing is, there is no reference to their being elected, specifically, in regard to their coming to faith. They may have been, but many of us would suggest they were "chosen" for the particular vocations that they were called to perform, rather than to be saved. In other words, the apostles (before they were chosen to be apostles) were already disciples by choice. Paul and Jeremiah were chosen for special preaching vocations as well. Whether they would have come to faith apart from such special callings we may never know.

It is, of course, clear that God sovereignly revealed Himself to these men in such a way as to encourage the out come of their becoming believers. However, there were many "to whom the arm of the Lord [was] revealed" who nonetheless failed to convert (John 12:37-38). Paul spoke of his obedience to the heavenly vision as if it was something that he might otherwise have disobeyed (Acts 26:19).

[21centpilgrim]

Thanks Steve, this is Jeremiah by the way.

there were many "to whom the arm of the Lord [was] revealed" who nonetheless failed to convert (John 12:37-38).

this passage goes on to say that these to whom God's arm was revealed could not believe. John 12:39 So I find their failing to convert to not prove anything other than God made it so that they couldn't believe.

Paul spoke of his obedience to the heavenly vision as if it was something that he might otherwise have disobeyed (Acts 26:19).

Reading the whole passage it seems that at the end when Paul says 'therefore I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision' was in response to this supernatural intervention coupled with God telling Paul that God appeared in this manner to appoint Paul to bring the transforming gospel to the gentiles. How could this man disobey this? I am not aware of any supernatural encounter in scripture, maybe someone disobeyed a dream I know men disobeyed prophets, where man said no thanks to God. Even when men brought excuses (Moses or Jeremiah) God still had his way. Jonah took the long route but even he came around.

I agree that we may never know if some people would have come to God had God not had special callings. ( What makes a call special -vs- ordinary?)Therefore is it fair to insist on leaving the door open for individual election?

Grace and peace

[21centpilgrim]

After a few days of thought I can't get past the corporate example and present ramifications of the kingdom of God in the old testament and how it was only a remnant of Israel and was open to gentile God- fearers.
thanks Darin and Steve for your input. Still wrestling with these things. Then the atonement was not for specific people but only for everyone generally? Am I working my way backwards PILUT?

When all Thy mercies, O my God,
My rising soul surveys,
Transported with the view, I’m lost
In wonder, love, and praise

Worship is the main thing.

[benstenson]

pilgrim, your truth seeking attitude made this thread a blessing to read through.

I hope some of the explanations in this article could be helpful to you.
http://kmeministries.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=68

I don't know anything about that website but I know the man who wrote the article and he explains a lot of things in a very clear and straightforward way.

I found myself digging through PILUT as well that's funny to see you put it the same way. The whole thing is all connected.

There is a wealth of knowledge available for people who are seeking the truth. I was so surprised to find so much. Sometimes I became tempted to have pride from learning a lot of wonderful things that many people don't understand. That's obviously dumb because I had previously been crying to God for understanding. But as long as we keep a good attitude then we will be transformed by the renewing of our minds and not just puffed up. God bless you.