Monthly Archives: December 2019

Refuting the Idea of Corporate Election

Posted on by
Reply

From Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical And Theological Reflections”

To say that election involves the selection of one group rather than another raises another problem that warrants an extended explanation. Most scholars who claim election is corporate argue that personal faith is the ultimate and decisive reason why some people are saved rather than others. Calvinists, on the other hand, assert that faith is the result of God’s predestining work. But those who opt for corporate election think that they have a better conception of election than Calvinists, and at the same time they can maintain that faith is what ultimately determines one’s salvation. Now it seems to me that there is a flaw in this reasoning that is fatal to those who espouse corporate election. If God corporately elects some people to salvation, and the election of one group rather than another was decided before any group came into existence (9:11), and it was not based on any works that this group did or any act of their will (9:11–12, 16), then it would seem to follow that the faith of the saved group would be God’s gift given before time began. But if the faith of any corporate entity depends upon God’s predestining work, then individual faith is not decisive for salvation. What is decisive would be God’s election of that group. In other words, the group elected would necessarily exercise faith since God elected this corporate entity.

But if what I have said above is correct, then one of the great attractions of the corporate view of election vanishes. Many find corporate election appealing because God does not appear as arbitrary in electing some to salvation and bypassing others. But if corporate election is election unto salvation, and if that election determines who will be saved, then God is not any less arbitrary. It hardly satisfies to say that God did not choose some individuals to be saved and passed by others but that it is true that he chose one group to be saved and bypassed another group.

Those who champion corporate election, however, would object, and I think the reason is that they do not really hold to corporate election of a group or of people at all. When those who advocate corporate election say that God chose “the Church,” “a group,” or a “corporate entity,” they are not really saying that God chose any individuals that comprise a group at all.32 The words “Church” and “group” are really an abstract entity or a concept that God chose. Those who become part of that entity are those who exercise faith. God simply chose that there be a “thing” called the Church, and then he decided that all who would put their faith in Christ would become part of the Church. In other words, the choosing of a people or a group does not mean that God chose one group of people rather than another, according to those who support corporate election. God chose to permit the existence of the entity called “the Church,” which corporate whole would be populated by those who put their faith in Christ and so become part of that entity.

If corporate election involves the selection of an abstract entity like the Church, and then people decide whether or not to exercise faith and thereby become part of the Church, it seems to follow that the selection of the Church does not involve the selection of any individuals or group at all. Instead God determined before time that there would be a “thing” called the Church and that those who exercise faith would be part of it. The problem with this view, however, is that the Church is not an abstract entity or a concept. It is comprised of people. Indeed the Biblical text makes it clear again and again that election involves the selection of people, not of a concept. For example: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); “God chose the foolish … and God chose the weak … and God chose the base and despised” (1 Cor 1:27–28); “God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation” (2 Thess 2:13; cf. also Rom 9:23–25; 11:2; 2 Tim 1:9). The point I am trying to make is that those who advocate corporate election do not stress adequately enough that God chose a corporate group of people, and if he chose one group of people (and not just a concept or an abstract entity) rather than another group, then (as we saw above) the corporate view of election does not make God any less arbitrary than the view of those who say God chose certain individuals.

An analogy may help here. Suppose you say, “I am going to choose to buy a professional baseball team.” This makes sense if you then buy the Minnesota Twins or the Los Angeles Dodgers. But if you do this, you choose the members of that specific team over other individual players on other teams. It makes no sense to say “I am going to buy a professional baseball team” that has no members, no players, and then permit whoever desires to come to play on the team. In the latter case you have not chosen a team. You have chosen that there be a team, the makeup of which is totally out of your control. So to choose a team requires that you choose one team among others along with the individuals who make it up. To choose that there be a team entails no choosing of one group over another but only that a group may form into a team if they want to. The point of the analogy is that if there really is such a thing as the choosing of a specific group, then individual election is entailed in corporate election.

. . .

Those who defend corporate election are conscious of the fact that it is hard to separate corporate from individual election, for logic would seem to require that the individuals that make up a group cannot be separated from the group itself. Klein responds by saying that this amounts to an imposition of modern western categories upon Biblical writers. He goes on to say that it requires a “logic that is foreign to their thinking.” Clark Pinnock also says that the Arminian view is more attractive because he is “in the process of learning to read the Bible from a new point of view, one that I believe is more truly evangelical and less rationalistic.” Those who cannot see how election is corporate without also involving individuals have fallen prey to imposing western logic upon the Bible.

I must confess that this objection strikes me as highly ironic. For example, Klein also says that it makes no sense for God to plead for Israel to be saved (Rom 10:21) if he has elected only some to be saved. But this objection surely seems to be based on so-called western logic. Klein cannot seem to make sense logically of how both of these can be true, and so he concludes that individual election is not credible. Has he ever considered that he might be forcing western logic upon the text and that both might be true in a way we do not fully comprehend? Indeed, one could assert that the focus upon individual choice as ultimately determinative in salvation is based on “western” logic inasmuch as it concentrates upon the individual and his or her individual choice. And on the same page that Pinnock says he is escaping from rationalism, he says he cannot believe “that God determines all things and that creaturely freedom is real” because this view is contradictory and incoherent. He goes on to say, “The logic of consistent Calvinism makes God the author of evil and casts serious doubt on his goodness.” These kinds of statements from Pinnock certainly seem to reflect a dependence on western logic.

Now most Calvinists would affirm that logic should not be jettisoned, but they would also claim that the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is finally a mystery. The admission of mystery demonstrates that Calvinists are not dominated by western logic. In fact it seems to me that those who insist that human freedom and individual faith must rule out divine determination of all things are those who end up subscribing to western logical categories.

. . .

There are times when Scripture strongly affirms two realities that cannot finally be
resolved logically by us. . . . Such mysteries should only be adopted if that is where the Biblical evidence leads. I believe the Biblical evidence compels us to see such a mystery in the case of divine election and human responsibility.[1]

This Generation?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: DOES JOHN MACARTHUR MAKE HIS CASE ON THE OLIVET DISCOURSE? by Gary DeMar

In his book The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age, John MacArthur seems to go out of his way to avoid having to deal with the inherent problems of his prophetic system. Here’s just one example:

[N]otice Christ’s only explicit remarks about the destruction of the temple are those recorded in verse 2 [of Matthew 24], as Jesus and the disciples were departing from the temple (v. 1). In the Olivet Discourse itself He makes no clear reference to the events of A.D. 70. His entire reply is an extended answer to the more important question about the signs of His coming and the end of the age. Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur. That is because those events were not really germane to the end of the end of the age. They were merely a foretaste of the greater judgment that would accompany His return, previews of what is to come ultimately.1

This is a remarkable statement given that there is nothing in the context of the Olivet Discourse that indicates that Jesus is “ignoring their initial question.” How does MacArthur know this? He doesn’t. This is not exegesis. He is reading his dispensational system into the text. He scrupulously avoids the heart of the debate over the time texts, especially regarding “this generation” (24:34).

“Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.” Nothing whatsoever? He has to say this because to admit that Jesus was describing what was going to happen to the temple that was standing there – “not one stone here shall be left upon another” (24:3) – would mean Jesus had a great deal to say “about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.” It would occur before that existing generation passed away (24:34).

There’s a lot I could say about MacArthur’s comments on Matthew 24, but I’ve said them repeatedly elsewhere. I found this comment surprising:

Notice, moreover, that the great tribulation Christ described involves cataclysm and suffering on a global cosmic scale (vv. 29-30)—not a local holocaust in Jerusalem only.2

If Jesus isn’t describing “a local holocaust in Jerusalem only,” then how is it that it can be avoided by escaping to the mountains outside of Judea (24:16-20)?

The cosmic language of 24:29-30 is typical of cosmic language being used to describe a judgment on Babylon (Isa. 13:1-11) and “Judah and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Zeph. 1:1-4).

The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age reads as if it was written in a hurry. For example, in one place MacArthur writes that preterists “ultimately depart from and nullify the strict literal sense of Matthew 24:34,” while on the previous page he chides preterists for insisting that Matthew 24:34 should be interpreted with “wooden literalness.”3 MacArthur should have studied how “this generation” is used elsewhere in the New Testament. “This generation” always refers — without exception — to the generation to whom Jesus is speaking.4 Since the meaning of “this generation” is crucial for establishing the proper time setting for the Olivet Discourse, MacArthur should have spent considerable time justifying his interpretation.

He calls the preterist interpretation of “this generation” a “misunderstanding”5 without ever dealing with the extensive arguments preterists use to defend their position. Preterists are not the only ones who have this “misunderstanding.” Here are three examples from commentators who would not describe themselves as preterists:

  • [T]he obvious meaning of the words “this generation” is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any sense other than its normal one: in Mark (elsewhere in 8:12, 9:19) the word always has this meaning.6
  • [This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.7
  • The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark “this generation” clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.8

Why doesn’t MacArthur attempt to refute these non-preterist scholars? Do they misunderstand the clear teaching of Scripture?

In addition to an incomplete study of how “this generation” is used in the gospels, MacArthur morphs “near” and “shortly” into “imminent” without ever making a case for how this can be done exegetically. If the Holy Spirit wanted to convey that Jesus could return at “any moment” over a period of nearly 2000 years (so far), He would have directed the biblical writers to choose Greek words that mean “any moment” instead of “near” and “shortly.” He didn’t.

https://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Time-Text-Chart.jpg

 

Consider James 5:8–9, a passage that MacArthur uses to support his contention that Jesus could come “at any moment” but near to those who first received and read his letter.9 “You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8). “At hand,” or “near,” cannot be made to mean “any moment.” “At hand” is defined for us by the Bible in the next verse: “Behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (5:9). “At hand” = “right at the door.” How far from the door is Jesus in Revelation 3:20? Being “right at the door” means being close enough to knock.

MacArthur is either oblivious to the debate surrounding this issue or he tactically decided to steer his readers around the topic so as not to raise a very big red flag.

Will the Real Literalist Please Stand Up?

MacArthur states that interpreting “this generation” in a “wooden literalness” fashion would mean that “the rest of the Olivet Discourse must be spiritualized or otherwise interpreted figuratively in order to explain how Christ’s prophecies could all have been fulfilled by A.D. 70 without His returning bodily to earth.”10 Do preterists spiritualize (a word not often defined) the events described by Jesus in Matthew 24? Not at all! They compare Scripture with Scripture. We let the Bible interpret the Bible. There were literal earthquakes (Matt. 27:54; 28:2; Acts 16:26) and literal famines (Acts 11:28; cf. Rom. 8:35), just as Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:7). Paul tells us that the “gospel” literally had been preached “throughout the world [kosmos]” (Rom. 1:8), “to all the nations” (Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16), “in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23; also 1:6), just as Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:14). Then there are Jesus specific words that the literal temple that the disciples asked about would be destroyed before the last apostle died (Matt. 16:27-28) and that first-century generation passed away (24:34).

Last Days Madness and Wars and Rumors of Wars answer every argument raised by MacArthur, arguments which he studiously avoids addressing in this poorly conceived book. Some might claim that MacArthur is unaware of the work done in this area. This debate has been around for centuries. Anyone writing on this topic should be aware of the current literature. He knows what’s going on. He quotes from an internet article by me and references other preterist sources. MacArthur, who was good friends with R. C. Sproul who wrote The Last Days According to Jesus (1998), was aware of Sproul’s preterist position.

  1. John MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), 80. [↩]
  2. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 78. [↩]
  3. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 81, 80. [↩]
  4. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th ed. (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 55-60, 183-188. [↩]
  5. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 219. [↩]
  6. Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook of the Gospel of Mark (New York: United Bible Societies, 1961), 419. [↩]
  7. D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985), 8:507. [↩]
  8. William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480. [↩]
  9. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 51. [↩]
  10. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 80. [↩]