Corporate Election?

Apollinarianism, Arianism, Arminianism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Christian Science, Dispensationalism, Docetism, Donatism, Eastern Orthodox, Ebionites, FV/NPP, Gnosticism, Hebrew Roots Movement, Hinduism, Hyper-Calvinism, ICOC, Islam, JWs, Keswick/Exchanged Life, Manichaeism, Modalism, Monophysitism, Montanism, Mormonism, New Age, New Covenant Theology, Occultism, Open Theism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, SDA, Unitarianism, UPC, or any other view that denies or perverts the five solas: Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.
Forum rules
This forum is for discussion of aberrant doctrine and not for attempts to rehabilitate the various views considered to be apostate, cultic, heretical, or heterodox.

Corporate Election?

Active Member
Active Member
Joined: August 9th, 2015, 10:05 pm

March 17th, 2017, 6:28 am #1

The Arminian doctrine of foreknowledge teaches that God looks down through a, "tunnel in time", and that He chooses/elects to salvation those individuals who He sees responding positively to the Gospel. Recently however, I've run into a new Arminian "doctrine", something called, "CORPORATE Election". By this they do not mean that there is BOTH individual AND corporate election, but that God only elects "corporately".

Does anyone have the "skinny" on this teaching (and who came up with/teaches it)?

*(I've seen N T Wright's name being bandied about, but I'm not sure why).


p.s. - just FYI, I'm not seeing it, but this is purported to be a perfect, Biblical example of "Corporate Election".

Judges 7
         1      Then Jerubbaal (that is, Gideon) and all the people who were with him, rose early and camped beside the spring of Harod; and the camp of Midian was on the north side of them by the hill of Moreh in the valley.
         2      The LORD said to Gideon, The people who are with you are too many for Me to give Midian into their hands, for Israel would become boastful, saying, My own power has delivered me.
         3      Now therefore come, proclaim in the hearing of the people, saying, Whoever is afraid and trembling, let him return and depart from Mount Gilead. So 22,000 people returned, but 10,000 remained.
         4      Then the LORD said to Gideon, The people are still too many; bring them down to the water and I will test them for you there. Therefore it shall be that he of whom I say to you, This one shall go with you, he shall go with you; but everyone of whom I say to you, This one shall not go with you, he shall not go.
         5      So he brought the people down to the water. And the LORD said to Gideon, You shall separate everyone who laps the water with his tongue as a dog laps, as well as everyone who kneels to drink.
         6      Now the number of those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was 300 men; but all the rest of the people kneeled to drink water.
         7      The LORD said to Gideon, I will deliver you with the 300 men who lapped and will give the Midianites into your hands; so let all the other people go, each man to his home.

Ask Mr. Religion
Site Founder
Joined: July 28th, 2008, 9:13 am

March 17th, 2017, 6:40 pm #2

It is a common response of the Arminian seeking to deny individual election. While it is true that God elected Israel to bring about His special revelation, it cannot be denied that corporate election involves actual persons, for not all Israel is Israel, the Israel of God, His elect ones.

Again, there is clearly a corporate dimension to God's election. It was God's intention to create for himself a people perfectly conformed to the likeness of his Son (Rom 8:29-30). It is inappropriate, however, to suggest that election in Christ is primarily corporate rather than personal and individual. Some of the divine gifts, for example, redemption and forgiveness of sins in Christ (Ephesians 1:7), together with the sealing of the Holy Spirit following belief in the gospel of salvation (Ephesians 1:13,14), must be understood as coming to believers personally and individually.

Further, to suggest that election is Christ is "not related primarily to individual salvation but to God's purpose" introduces an unnecessary "either-or." Predestination is to a relationship with God the Father through his Son, described in Ephesians 1:5 under the imagery of adoption.

That choice in Christ was made in eternity, before time and creation, as the phrase "before the creation of the world" makes plain. The language of election before the foundation of the world occurs a number of times in the Pauline letters, not least in the context of thanksgiving (1 Thes 1:4; 2:13; cf. Rom 8:29; 2 Tim 1:9), as part of an expression of gratitude for God's amazing grace. To say that election took place before creation indicates that God's choice was due to his own free decision and love, which were not dependent on temporal circumstances or man's foreseen merit. The reasons for his election were rooted in the depths of God's gracious, sovereign nature.

Clearly Romans 9-11 is not talking about corporate election, but individual election. Here are twelve reasons why:

1. The whole section (Romans 9-11) is about the security of individuals. Election of nations would not make any contextual sense. Paul has just told the Roman Christians that nothing could separate them from Gods love (Rom. 8:31-39). The objection that gives rise to chapters 9-11 is: How do we know that these promises from God are secure considering the current (unbelieving) state of Israel. They had promises too and they dont look too secure. Referring to corporate election would not fit the context. But if Paul were to respond by saying that it is only the elect individuals within Israel that are secure (true Israel), then this would make sense. We are secure because all elect individuals have always been secure.

2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact.

3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.

4. Rom. 9:15 emphasizes Gods sovereignty about choosing individuals. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. The pronoun hon (whom) is a masculine singular. If we were talking about nations, a plural pronoun would have been used.

5. Rom. 9:16 is dealing with individuals, not nations. So, it does not depend on the one who desires or makes effort, but on the mercy of God (my translation). theolontos (desire) and trechontos (effort) are both masculine singulars that is why it is translated the one rather than those. (I dont like ESVs translation of this (mans) as it is misleading and, ironically supporting of corporate election). It is hard to see national implications at all here. It is about individual desire and effort. The acquisition of Gods mercy transcends the ability of man.

6. Once again, Rom. 9:18, speaking in the context of the hardening of Pharaoh, Paul summaries what he is trying to say using masculine singular pronouns: Therefore, the one God wishes to have mercy on, he has mercy on. The one he wishes to harden, he hardens. It would seem that if Paul was merely speaking about national or corporate election, the summary statement would change from Pharaoh to nations (plural), but the summary here emphasizes the sovereignty of Gods will (theleo) over individuals (singular).

7. The objection in Rom. 9:14 makes little sense if Paul were speaking about corporate or national election. The charge of injustice (adikia), which much of the book of Romans is seeking to vindicate God of, is not only out of place, but could easily be answered if Paul was saying that the election of God is only with respect to nations and has no salvific intent.

8. The objection in Rom. 9:18 is even more out of place if Paul is not speaking about individual election. Why does he still blame people since no one can resist his will. The verb anthesteken, to oppose or resist, is third person singular. The problem the objector has is that it seems unfair to individuals, not corporations of people.

9. The rhetoric of a diatribe or apostrophe being used by Paul is very telling. An apostrophe is a literary devise that is used where an imaginary objector is brought in to challenge the thesis on behalf of an audience. It is introduced with What shall we say (Rom. 9:14) and You will say to me (Rom. 9:19). It is an effective teaching tool. However, if the imaginary objector is misunderstanding Paul, the apostrophe fails to accomplish its rhetorical purpose unless Paul corrects the misunderstanding. Paul does not correct the misunderstanding, only the conclusion. If corporate election were what Paul was speaking about, the rhetoric demands that Paul steer his readers in the right direction by way of the diatribe. Paul sticks to his guns even though the teaching of individual election does most certainly give rise to such objections.

10. Rom. 9:24 speaks about God calling the elect out of (ek) the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore, it is hard to see national election since God calls people out of all nations, ek Ioudaion (from Jews) ek ethnon (from Gentiles).

11. In Pauls specific return the the election theme in the first part of Romans 11, he illustrates those who were called (elect) out of the Jewish nation by referencing Elijah who believed he was the only one still following the Lord. The response from God to Elijahs lament is referenced by Paul in Rom. 11:4 where God says, I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. This tells us two things:
1) these are seven thousand individuals that God has kept, not a new nation.
2) These individuals are kept by God in belief as the characteristic of their keeping is their not bowing to Baal (i.e. they remained loyal to God).

12. Using the Elijah illustration in Rom. 11:5, Paul argues that in the same way, God has preserved a remnant of believing Israel of which he (as an individual) is a part (Rom. 11:1). This keeping in belief of individuals is according to Gods gracious choice (Rom. 11:5)
AMR (a.k.a. Patrick)
Do You Confess?
Faculty PRBS
My Randomata Blog

larry joseph pearson
Invested Member
Joined: October 12th, 2011, 8:44 pm

March 17th, 2017, 11:53 pm #3

:shock:  I have heard of the doctrine but from men as: Paul Marston, William Kline, Ben Witherington and Brian Abasciano. A few of this group published a book entitled "God's Strategy in Human History." There are others I have missed but they essentially deny the truth that AMR affirmed in his post.