I am a strong proponent of the corporate election view and wanted to list and link to some good resources which explain and advocate that position. Hopefully, I will add on to this as new resources become available. If anyone knows of any good resources on the subject that I have missed, please let me know in the comments section so I can add them.
Articles:
A Concise Summary of the Corporate View of Election and Predestination
William W. Klein, “Is Corporate Election Merely Virtual Election?”
Brian J. Abasciano, “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner”
Brian Abasciano, “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election”, Ashland Theological Journal 41 (2009) 67-102. This is Dr. Abasciano’s follow-up to his “Reply to Thomas Schreiner” on Romans 9 (above) which Schreiner later responded to. While it is not a direct response to Schreiner’s rebuttal, it does interact with it quite a bit.
Brian Abasciano Responds to Dan Wallace on Corporate Election
Brian Abasciano Responds to Thomas Schreiner’s Review of His Book on Romans 9:10-18
William Lane Craig on Romans 9
Some Great Comments on Corporate Election, Apostasy/Perseverance, and Rom. 8:28-39
Some Good Comments from Robert Shank on Rom 8:28-29
What Does “Calling/Called” Refer to in the Bible?
Books:
Elect in the Son, by Robert Shank
The New Chosen People, by William W. Klein (Revised and Expanded)
God’s Strategy in Human History, by Forster and Marston (esp. chapter 17, “Chosen and Elect”)
The Chosen People: Election, Paul and Second Temple Judaism, by A. Chadwick Thornhill
[Also, see here for a lecture by Thornhill on Paul’s Election Theology ]
Arminian Perspectives 
Thanks for the resources. I hold somewhat to corporate election though I do think that the Bible uses the term election for a few people (such as Paul). While we might say that Paul was elected to service, it seems Romans 16:13 is not used this way. Yet I do believe that the Bible teaches conditional election (based on faith) in the elected One, Jesus our Messiah.
SK,
Many scholars think that Rom 16:13 refers to Rufus being “choice”, that is special, noteworthy, eminent. Some think it refers to his election to a service not mentioned in the text but that would have been well known to the readers. But even more significantly, even if it refers to him as chosen in the full theological sense, it fits in perfectly with corporate election since the view holds that individuals are chosen because they are in Christ, thereby sharing in his election. So any way you slice it, Rom 16:13 is completely compatible with the corporate election view.
…even if it refers to him as chosen in the full theological sense, it fits in perfectly with corporate election since the view holds that individuals are chosen because they are in Christ, thereby sharing in his election.
Exactly. One of the areas of focus in the corporate view is that it is “primarily” corporate and not “entirely” corporate. As “Arminian” said, the individual draws his identity as a chosen one from membership in the elect group which is elect through its identity with Christ (the elect One). The group is chosen, and by extension all those who come to be a part of the group share in its chosen status (Rom. 11:16-24 illustrates this principle nicely). So corporate election does not discount the idea that individuals are elect, but the focus of election is on the group and one becomes elect by becoming a member of the group- the body of Christ. Individuals are not “elected” to be put into Christ. In that case election would be primarily individual rather than corporate, and such a concept would contradict Eph. 1:4.
God Bless,
Ben
BTW, even the text locates Rufus’ election “in the Lord” (Rom. 16:13)
When it comes to the concept of election, Ephesians 1:4 is a passage that first comes to mind (among other passages). Some consider it to be one of the clearer passages in the New Testament speaking about election that exists during the the New Covenant age. Consequently, when discussing this biblical doctrine, Ephesians 1:4 will always be one of the first Scriptures to be discussed.
Ephesians 1:3-4
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessings in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
Having recently checked out a book from the library by Ben Witherington (III) called The Problem With Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Weslyanism, I discovered a very insightful comment by BW3 in one of his footnotes. On page 83 in the fourth chapter (Awaiting the Election Results), he notes that:
Beginning at Ephesians 1:4, Paul talks about the concept of election. The key phrase to understanding what he means by this concept is in Him or in Christ.
In a footnote to this [53], he says:
“See the summary of usage in H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 173-74. He rightly concludes that we do have the local sense here. The problem with his treatment is that he tries to impose grammatical precision on an epideitic sermon which involves the language of the heart in long, effusive sentences. This is like trying to impose mathematical precision on the meter of a poem or song. Hoehner is trying to argue that the text must mean God chose “us” before the world began because the grammatical diagram of the sentence suggests such a conclusion. As Hoehner admits, however, even Calvin seems to have agreed that God’s choosing “us in Christ” means Christ is the Elect One chosen before the world began and believers are “in Him.” Barth’s view is of the same ilk as Calvin’s.”
Now there though this is only about thirty five percent of the whole note, it is nevertheless a very important observation worthy of being mentioned. Though I haven’t read H. Hoehner’s commentary on Ephesians, it does appear to be the same reasoning James White presented in his debate with Steve Gregg on Ephesians 1:4. In fact, John Piper also says the very same type of thing in a footnote on Ephesians 1:4 in his book The Pleasures of God. This leads me to believe that such reasoning is the best that Calvinists can come up with in using this verse to support their understanding of election. Hence, this is why Witherington’s note is worth noticing, for it rightly shows the hermeneutical error in the Calvinist’s interpretation of this verse.
Be sure and pick up the book brothers and sisters– I suspect that many of you will thoroughly enjoy it.
Troy,
Thanks for the quote. Far from supporting Calvinism, Eph. 1:4 demonstrates that the Calvinist concept of election of sinners to be in Christ is unbiblical.
God Bless,
Ben
Pingback: An Apparently Not So Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9 « Arminian Perspectives
Hi guys, looks like the Joshua Ratliff, Ephesians 1 link is broken. Do you know if that article is still available anywhere?
The link works fine at SEA:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Ratliff-Ephesians1.3-4-An-Explanation-of-the-Corporate-and-Christocentric-Nature-of-Election
Excellent, thanks.
I fixed the link on the post as well. Thanks for the heads up.
Pingback: An Arminian Response to C. Michael Patton’s “The Irrationality of Calvinism” Part 2: Theological Imprecision and Misrepresentations « Arminian Perspectives
Pingback: Society of Evangelical Arminians | An Apparently Not so Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9
How about you just read Romans 9 (and the entire Bible for that matter) in the way Paul and the other authors meant it to be read. It’s obvious that Paul is talking about individuals. You can allegorize Jacob and Esau all you want, but it’s so clear that Paul is talking about individuals like Pharaoh (who didn’t harden his own heart if you actually take a proper look at Exodus).
Just be real: the only reason why you refute election is because you don’t agree that God should be like that. It doesn’t seem fair. Well I guess the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers that were killed doesn’t sound nice either, but it’s right there.
Every open and obvious verse that teaches election, you just add pieces to make your view fit. You twist the Scripture to fit your view because you can’t stomach the truth that God is sovereign and does the choosing based on nothing else besides His will. And when I read the Bible, I see that God saves ALL the way, not just partially. All throughout the Bible, people react to God not God to people.
So you can try to pick apart particular verses and do them a dissatisfaction in the process, but you also have to refute the overarching narrative of the Bible and therefore the character of God if you hold to your Arminian views.
Not trying to be rude, but I used to be an Arminian and once I just put aside my own ideas for what I thought was “fair” and just accepted the truth that the texts are saying, it was impossible not to agree with a reformed theology.
Hopefully you can start taking the text for what it’s saying.
Hello Cade,
I appreciate you stopping by but I find your comment disappointing and unnecessarily aggressive and uncharitable. That’s too bad.
How about you just read Romans 9 (and the entire Bible for that matter) in the way Paul and the other authors meant it to be read.
You do realize this is question begging, right?
It’s obvious that Paul is talking about individuals. You can allegorize Jacob and Esau all you want,
If you have a problem with allegorizing then you have a problem with Paul who does it quite often. That is undeniable. But when it comes to Jacob and Esau in this context it is not so much about allegorizing as it is about God’s sovereign choice of who will be the covenant head of His people (culminating in Christ, whom most of the Jews of Paul’s day had rejected, which is the main subject of concern in chapters 9-11) through whom they will be named (as belonging to Him). Did you bother to read any of what was referenced here, or did you just assume you knew all about it and launch right into your rant about how I need to read the Bible like you do? Let me help you:
“God chose the people of Israel in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel (Deut 4:37; 7:6-8). That is, by choosing Jacob/Israel, the corporate/covenant representative, God also chose his descendants as his covenant people. It is a matter of Old Testament covenant theology. The covenant representative on the one hand and the people/nation of Israel on the other hand are the focus of the divine covenantal election, and individuals are elect only as members of the elect people. Moreover, in principle, foreign individuals who were not originally members of the elect people could join the chosen people and become part of the elect, demonstrating again that the locus of election was the covenant community and that individuals found their election through membership in the elect people. (Abasciano, Corporate Election in Romans 9, 353)
And…
“We have already noted that God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. More specifically, God chose Abraham and his descendants, but limited his election of Abraham’s descendants to only some of them by his choice of Isaac as the head of the covenant through whom Abraham’s covenant descendants were to be reckoned. He then limited his election of the covenant descendants even further by his choice of Jacob as the head of the covenant. At the same time, and as already pointed out above, people not naturally related to Jacob and so not part of the elect people could join the chosen people, becoming part of the elect. On the other hand, individual members of the elect people could be cut off from the covenant people due to violation of the covenant, rendering them non-elect.”
“Finally, the Apostle Paul would argue, God limited his election even further to Christ as the head of the New Covenant (Gal. 3–4; see especially 3:16; cf. Rom. 3–4; 8), which is the fulfillment of the Old. Paradoxically, this also widened the election of God’s people because all who are in Christ by faith are chosen by virtue of their identification with Christ the corporate covenantal head, opening covenant membership to Gentiles as Gentiles. Just as God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Jacob/Israel, the Church was chosen in Christ (as Eph. 1:4 puts it). And as Ephesians 2 makes clear, Gentiles who believe in Christ are in him made to be part of the commonwealth of Israel, fellow citizens with the saints, members of God’s household, and possessors of the covenants of promise (2:11-22; note especially vv. 12, 19). Indeed, any Jews who did not believe in Jesus were cut off from the elect people, and any believing Gentiles who stop believing will likewise be cut off, while anyone who comes to faith, whether Jew or Gentile, will be incorporated into God’s people (Rom. 11:17-24).”
“In the New Covenant, God’s people are chosen corporately as a consequence of their union with Christ, which is effected by faith. While this is not quite the traditional Arminian position, it fully supports Arminian theology because it is a conditional election. Most directly, such election is conditioned on being in Christ. But then being in Christ is itself conditioned on faith, meaning that the divine election of God’s people and the election of individuals for salvation is ultimately conditional on faith in Christ.” (Misconceptions, pp. 7, 8)
“It is true that corporate election does not refer to the election of each individual separately from Christ or the group, but this does not in any way nullify the election of each individual member of the group as a result of the group’s election. It is also true that corporate election does not refer to the choice of anyone to join the elect people. The concept of covenantal election or election unto eternal salvation simply does not apply to entrance into the elect people. It actually refers to a people being chosen to belong to God, to receive the benefits of his covenant promises (ideally), and to live according to his covenant commands (Gen. 18:19; Deut. 4:20; 7:6-9; 14:2; Ps. 135:4; Eph. 1:4ff.; 1 Pet. 2:9-10). All of this applies to each individual in the New Covenant as a consequence of membership in the elect people, and more profoundly, of being in Christ by faith, which is what makes someone a part of God’s people.” (ibid., pp. 10, 11)
And…
“What is imperative to see in relation to the nature of the election Paul envisions in Rom. 9.10-13 is that the significance of the individual Jacob’s election for Israel was that they were elect by virtue of their identification with him. Their election was ‘in him’, and thus intrinsically consequent upon his. This dispels another of the main objections to taking election as corporate in these verses – that the individuals Jacob and Esau are obviously in view to one degree or another, and therefore so is individual election (of individuals as autonomous entities). This objection fails to apprehend the relationship between the election of the corporate representative and his people. The corporate representative’s election is unique, entailing the election of all who are identified with him. Its significance was never that each individual member of the elect people was chosen as an individual to become part of the elect people in the same manner as the corporate head was chosen. Rather, the individual possesses elect status as a consequence of membership in the elect people/identification with the corporate representative. In the case of the divine covenantal election, God chooses his people by his choice of the covenant head.”
“A great obstacle to the view that Paul is teaching direct election of individuals as individuals to become part of his people and receive salvation is the fact that the corporate view is the view of the Old Testament generally and the texts Paul interprets in Romans 9 specifically as well as the standard view of Judaism in Paul’s day. Moo, an outspoken advocate of individual election, admits as much and concedes, ‘We would expect Paul to be thinking of “election” here in the same terms, an expectation that seems to be confirmed by the OT texts that Paul quotes’. This is exactly right. As I have argued elsewhere, the burden of proof lies squarely upon those who would argue that Paul departs from the standard biblical and Jewish concept of election. Therefore, it is an insuperable problem for the individual election view that everything Paul says here in Romans 9 fits comfortably into the view of corporate election, which could speak of the inclusion or exclusion of individuals vis-à-vis the covenant without shifting the locus of election itself to the individual. Indeed, Paul’s olive tree metaphor in Rom. 11.17-24 evidences the view of corporate election perfectly. Individuals get grafted into the elect people (the olive tree) and participate in election and its blessings by faith or get cut off from God’s chosen people and their blessings because of unbelief, while the focus of election clearly remains the corporate people of God, which spans salvation history. The natural understanding of Jacob’s election in a first-century context would have led readers to apply Paul’s example to the character of the corporate election of God’s people rather than to the individual. Advocates of individual election in Romans 9 appear to have jumped to applying election directly to individuals because of individualistic assumptions foreign to Paul and his socio-historical milieu.”
“Thus, Paul’s argument based on Jacob and Esau is salvation-historical. Based on the circumstances of their conception and the timing of the divine call/proclamation of Jacob’s election as the covenant heir, Paul concludes that the election of God’s people was not dictated by any distinctive of either twin, but by the sovereign will and call of God. Generally speaking, by basing the foundational election of his people on his sovereign call rather than some meritorious distinctive of Jacob or de-meritorious distinctive of Esau, God ensured that he remained free to choose who his people are according to his own good pleasure. More specifically, he ensured that he remained free to choose the head/mediator of his covenant for any (or no) reason whatsoever, and thereby to choose similarly who his people are. Most specifically in the context of Paul’s argument, God’s sovereign call of Jacob and his descendants ensured that he could call only those who believe in Jesus Christ seed of Abraham if he so chose, that is, regard them as his covenant people, and thereby fulfill his purpose of blessing the whole world in Abraham, for Israel’s election depended wholly on his sovereign will from the beginning and therefore remained subject to the dictates of his own will.” (Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10-18, An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis, pp. 59-61)
For more excellent quotes from Brian Abasciano and others, see here: https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
And this article is especially helpful in clearing up misconceptions about what corporate election entails: http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Abasciano.%20Clearing%20Up%20Misconceptions%20about%20Corporate%20Election.%20ATJ.pdf
So you can see that your objections are easily answered by the corporate view, and there is much more than can be understood if you take the time to study and understand the view you wish to critique. Whether you end up agreeing with it or not, that is the proper and most charitable way to go about things. I am sure you would agree.
Just be real: the only reason why you refute election is because you don’t agree that God should be like that. It doesn’t seem fair. Well I guess the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers that were killed doesn’t sound nice either, but it’s right there.
And this is supposed to make your point, how? First, I am not trying to “refute election”. I am only trying to properly understand election in view of all that Scripture says on the subject rather than just assume what Calvinists tell me about it is true. Scripture is my authority, not the dictates of Calvinist theology. For that reason I do not reject Calvinism because it seems unfair to me (as you have asserted without knowing anything about me). I reject it because I can’t find it in the Bible, and that is ultimately where the debate needs to take place. Sorry if you disagree.
Every open and obvious verse that teaches election, you just add pieces to make your view fit.
Really? You mean like how Calvinists read their unconditional view into every text that talks about election even though none of them actually say that election is unconditional? You mean like how Calvinists love to quote Ephesians 1:4 as if it teaches unconditional election but ignore the implications of Paul saying we were “chosen in Him” rather than chosen to be in Him, and the fact that we come to be in Christ by faith (Eph. 1:13)?
You twist the Scripture to fit your view because you can’t stomach the truth that God is sovereign and does the choosing based on nothing else besides His will. And when I read the Bible, I see that God saves ALL the way, not just partially. All throughout the Bible, people react to God not God to people.
Well then you must have missed a great deal of what the Bible says as the Bible is full of examples of God reacting to people.
So you can try to pick apart particular verses and do them a dissatisfaction in the process, but you also have to refute the overarching narrative of the Bible and therefore the character of God if you hold to your Arminian views.
Funny, I would say this exact same thing about Calvinism, you know, like how they treat the warning passages and the passages that use deliberate universal language to describe God’s provision of atonement, love for all and desire to save all. I see a whole lot of twisting and turning from Calvinists when it comes to those passages, just as I see a lot of twisting and turning when it comes to the actual language of Eph. 1:4 or the pronouns (in reference to the “the rest” who were “hardened”) that can be followed throughout Romans 9-11 that show that the hardened (non-elect) can yet become elect, which alone explodes the Calvinist idea of election. So I guess just making assertions doesn’t accomplish much, does it?
Not trying to be rude, but I used to be an Arminian and once I just put aside my own ideas for what I thought was “fair” and just accepted the truth that the texts are saying, it was impossible not to agree with a reformed theology.
Thanks for sharing your personal journey, but it would be nice if you were honest about the fact that this is your personal journey, not mine. That way, all of the uncharitable projecting about why you assume I reject Calvinism could have been avoided.
Hopefully you can start taking the text for what it’s saying.
And hopefully you will get to a point where you realize that many, many people reject Calvinism exactly because they are trying to take the text for what it is saying rather than just allowing Calvinists to dictate to them what the texts are supposed to be saying.
God Bless