Corporate election

Gomarus · #1 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:35 AM

I read in one place that Barth initially presented the idea of corporate election, especially in his interpretation of Eph. 1:4.

In another place I read that Barth popularized the idea of corporate election.

Does this view of corporate election (as opposed to individual unconditional election) predate Barth?

Ivanhoe · #2 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:43 AM

I am sure some of the Remonstrants mentioned it. I know it became real popular among NT scholars in the mid-20C who may or may not have been influenced by Barth.

AV1611 · #3 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I read in one place that Barth initially presented the idea of corporate election, especially in his interpretation of Eph. 1:4.

In another place I read that Barth popularized the idea of corporate election.

Does this view of corporate election (as opposed to individual unconditional election) predate Barth?

Calvin taught corporate election, unless of course your definition of "corporate election" is something I am unfamiliar with.

Gomarus · #4 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 10:08 AM

As I understand it, Barth's view is that there is no individual unconditional election -- Christ is the elect one and all who are in Christ are thereby elect. But God does not unconditionally select who will be in Christ.

I know Scripture does have examples of corporate election in certain senses and for certain purposes, but not to the exclusion of individual unconditional election unto salvation.

I am seeking some specific references for Barth's view which pre-date him.

Stephen · #5 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 10:49 AM

Many Arminians affirm corporate election. This is the view of Jack Cottrell, professor at Cincinnatti Bible Seminary, and others in his denominational affiliation. This was not exclusively Bath's position.

Gomarus · #6 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Many Arminians affirm corporate election. This is the view of Jack Cottrell, professor at Cincinnatti Bible Seminary, and others in his denominational affiliation. This was not exclusively Bath's position.

Yes, Stephen. Thanks. I recognize that the view is not exclusive to Barth. It is popular among Arminians now. I also believe it pre-dates Barth. I'm just looking for references for that. It is different from the Arminian concept of election based on foreseen faith (i.e. conditional election).

Amazing Grace · #7 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Many Arminians affirm corporate election. This is the view of Jack Cottrell, professor at Cincinnatti Bible Seminary, and others in his denominational affiliation. This was not exclusively Bath's position.

Yes, Stephen. Thanks. I recognize that the view is not exclusive to Barth. It is popular among Arminians now. I also believe it pre-dates Barth. I'm just looking for references for that. It is different from the Arminian concept of election based on foreseen faith (i.e. conditional election).

Yes Gom, Barth believed Christ was alone the elect. Barth has such a view of sovereignty that he ended up believe Christ sdeath was so powerful, all would be saved. I find this actually better than free will salvation

Poimen · #8 (**permalink**) 03-25-2008, 01:39 PM

Calvin speaks of a general election in the Institutes 3.21.7

Quote:

“his free election has been only half explained until we come to individual persons, to whom God not only offers salvation but so assigns it that the certainty of its effect is not in suspense or doubt… So, indeed, God’s generous favor, which he has denied to others, has been displayed in the adoption of the race of Abraham; yet in the members of Christ a far more excellent power of grace appears, for, engrafted to their Head, they are never cut off from salvation… It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end. Rather, the outward change, without the working of inner grace, which might have availed to keep them, is intermediate between the rejection of mankind and the election of a meager number of the godly… Not that it was a vain and unprofitable thing simply to be a child of Abraham; such could not be said without dishonoring the covenant! No, God’s unchangeable plan, by which he predestined for himself those whom he willed, was in fact intrinsically effectual unto salvation for these spiritual offspring alone.”

Notice however that he does not use Ephesians 1 as a proof text, nor does he use this 'general election' idea as a bludgeon to destroy or subjugate eternal election. He carefully distinguishes between the two, all the while upholding the whole teaching of God's Word.