Corporate Election?

Posted on by

Mike Riccardi, in a facebook post of 9/7/26 writes:

Some theologians point to passages that teach election to service, the election of Christ, or the election of corporate entities to temporal blessing, and they argue that when Scripture speaks of election, it’s not about the election of individuals unto salvation.

But the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of election in one sense doesn’t mean that it can’t use that same terminology in other senses. In addition to vocational and corporate election, Scripture also teaches that God chooses certain individuals to receive the salvation He accomplishes in Christ.

I. Scripture explicitly connects election with salvation, with both the term and the concept appearing in salvific contexts.

1. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul states that the Father chose His people in Christ before the foundation of the world. Note, it doesn’t say that the Father chose Christ (though that’s true, 1 Peter 1:20), nor merely that He chose to save whoever believes in Christ, but that He chose “us”—a group of particular individuals. In other words, the objects of sovereign election are chosen to be united to Christ, the Mediator of their salvation.

This is when the Father “gives” His people to the Son (John 17:6), who will come to Him (John 6:37), be raised up on the last day (John 6:39), who are given eternal life (John 17:2; cf. 10:28-29), who are distinct from the world (John 17:9), and who will be with Christ forever in glory (John 17:24).

In the next verse, Ephesians 1:5, Paul says God’s purpose for choosing us in Christ is that His chosen ones would be holy and blameless before Him as adopted sons. Holiness, blamelessness, and adoption are all blessings of salvation—as are redemption (Eph 1:7, 14), forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7), an eternal inheritance (Eph 1:11, 14), and the sealing of the Spirit (Eph 1:13). These are the fruits of “the gospel of [our] salvation,” and they start with the Father’s election.

2. In Acts 13:48, Luke narrates the conversion of the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch by saying that “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Individuals savingly believe the Gospel because they had been appointed to eternal life by God.

3. Paul uses similar language when he tells the Thessalonians that God has “destined [them] … for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9). Destined for salvation.

4. Second Thessalonians 2:13 says what should end all controversy on the matter: “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.” God elects unto salvation.

5. And because Romans 9 is so clear, non-Calvinists aim to dismiss it by arguing that the election spoken of all throughout this chapter is a non-salvific election. But the context doesn’t allow for that.

a. For one, Romans 9 comes on the heels of Romans 8:28–39, where Paul links God’s foreknowledge and predestination—two words that speak of election—with several other aspects salvation. Those whom God foreknew and predestined, He also effectually called, justified and glorified. Those chosen are the ones who are regenerated, declared righteous, and finally brought to heaven to be with Christ.

b. For another, yes, there is no question that Romans 9 to 11 is about the place of Israel in God’s plans. But Paul begins this discussion about Israel by announcing his grief over their not being saved (9:1–5). Romans 9 (and 10 and 11) is about Israel’s salvation, or lack thereof: “My heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation” (10:1; cf. 9:30–33; 11:26).

c. God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael (9:7–9) and Jacob over Esau (9:10–13) certainly had to do with nations and people groups and temporal blessings. But being “children of God” and “children of the promise” describes more than just earthly blessings or a special role for service. Every time Paul uses these phrases they are references to salvation (Rom 8:16, 21; Gal 4:28; Phil 2:15). Further, this election is “not because of works” (Rom 9:11), which picks up on Paul’s virtually ubiquitous polemic in favor of justification by faith alone (cf. Rom 3:28; 9:32; Gal 2:16). The language of Romans 9:6–13 is intensely salvific.

d. And 9:14–29 continues to show us that Paul has salvation in mind. There is mention of:

· vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (9:22; destruction being the opposite of salvation, cf. Phil 1:28);

· vessels of mercy prepared for glory (9:23; glory being the concomitant of salvation, cf. 8:18; 2 Tim 2:10);

· being God’s beloved people (9:25);

· being sons of the living God (9:26);

· a remnant who are saved (9:27); and

· the righteousness which is by faith rather than works (9:30–33).

II. And not only does Scripture use the terms and concepts of election in salvific contexts, it also identifies the objects of that election as particular individuals. I’ll stick to just Romans 9, because that text is probably the most disputed and because this post is already obscenely long.

1. In 9:15, Paul quotes Exodus 33:19, where God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Both relative pronouns (Gk. ὃν, “whom”) are singular, which indicates that Paul has in view particular individuals upon whom God exercises saving mercy.

2. In 9:16, Paul retains the use of the grammatical singular when he says, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills [τοῦ θέλοντος, genitive singular] or the man who runs [τοῦ τρέχοντος, genitive singular], but on God who has mercy.”

3. In 9:18, Paul sums up the argument of verses 14 to 17 and once again uses the singular relative pronoun whom: “So then He has mercy on whom [ὃν] He desires, and He hardens whom [ὃν] He desires.”

4. In 9:19, Paul represents the objection to his teaching in individual terms. He says, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who [the interrogative pronoun τίς, nominative singular masculine] resists His will?’”

5. And even through to 9:21, Paul speaks of “one [Gk. ὃ, accusative singular neuter] vessel for honorable use and another [same] for dishonorable use.”

New Testament scholar Tom Schreiner is right to conclude, “Those who say that Paul is referring only to corporate groups do not have an adequate explanation as to why Paul uses the singular again and again in Romans 9” (99).

Schreiner’s chapter, “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation?”, is worth reading in its entirety (link in comments). If you read it, you’ll recognize two things: one, my indebtedness to Schreiner for the case made in this post; but also, that it is illegitimate to read Romans 9 as if it did not speak of election of particular individuals unto salvation.

Seeing The Whole

Posted on by

When Americans tell me they are heading to London for a week or ten days, they usually ask the same question: Where should we go? London is far too large a city to take in by wandering. My answer never changes. On your first day, find one of those red double-decker buses advertising a two-hour tour of the city, and get on it. You will not have to look hard. They are everywhere. Two hours sounds like a long time to sit still when you have only just arrived. It is the best two hours you will spend.

You have a local driver, and for two hours he is talking to everyone on board. That is the real gift. He knows things about the city that you could live there for years and never discover, and he keeps pointing out what you would otherwise drive straight past. Do you see that plaque above the shop? That is where such and such happened in 1682. Do you see that marker in the road? That commemorates an incident most Londoners have never heard of. Along the way, you pass Buckingham Palace, Whitehall, the Tower of London, the London Eye, Madame Tussauds, the Natural History Museum, and twenty other places besides. You have not really visited any of them. But you have seen all of them, and someone who knows has explained them to you.

That changes everything about the days that follow, because now you know what is there. You come off that bus with a list of seven or eight places you did not even know existed that morning, and you spend the rest of your trip exploring them properly.

Scripture works much the same way. The Bible is a magnificent book, and it is also a very large one. If we are going to plumb its depths, few things help more than seeing the whole first. We need a view of the whole map, a sense of how the story is shaped, so that we know where things fit. Then, whenever we open our Bibles, whether to Mark or Habakkuk or the Psalms or Exodus or 1 Chronicles or Galatians or Titus, we are not lost. We know where we are standing on the map.

That is precisely what Mitch Maher does in a video called Clarifying the Bible. It runs two hours and ten minutes and gives a general overview of the whole of Scripture. He does for the Bible what that driver does for London. He does not share our confessional position, though I found the overview itself sound and very helpful. His great gift is his grasp of the whole and his ability to communicate it clearly, so that you finish knowing where you are whenever you open the Book. Two hours and ten minutes is a small investment for a view of the whole. I would encourage you to take the ride.

Mitch Maher has made the full video freely available here. If two hours and ten minutes feels like more than you can manage in one sitting, do not let that put you off. Watch it in sections. The London tour buses are hop-on, hop-off for a reason, and you still see the whole city in the end.

When someone claims that the Greek…

Posted on by

“First of all, if someone claims that the Greek says something that none of the translations say, dismiss their idea and walk away. Perhaps if they are commentary writers or scholars, their argument might have some validity; but I am always suspect of someone who bases their interpretation on any basis that you are not able to check. An appeal to the Greek can be this type of baseless appeal. … Beware of people who claim authoritative knowledge based on something you can’t check. If they can cite a well-known translation or commentary writer, or if they make a sensible contextual argument, that is one thing. But to dismiss interpretations to the contrary that are held by all translations, be suspicious.”

– Bill Mounce