Foresight Faith View versus the Corporate View of Election in Baptist life?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    It bas become evident that most people address all the non-Calvinists here as if we all hold to what is commonly referred to as the "Foresight Faith View of Election." (i.e. God looks down the corridors of time to see what individuals will believe in Christ and based on that knowledge, elects only those individuals to be saved.)

    However, the most prominent view of election held to by non-Calvinistic Baptists has been what is known as the "Corporate View of Election." (i.e. God has elected or predestined to save whosoever believes in Christ. IOW, God has preplanned what he will do with all those who are in Christ. He has elected to save his Bride, the Church, but he has not predetermined who will or won't enter his Church. Hershel Hobbs, chairman who authored the Baptist Faith and Message uses the analogy of a sheep pen saying that God has predestined what will come of all the sheep in his pen, but hasn't predetermine who will and will not enter by the gate.)

    QUESTION: Have you assumed that all non-Calvinists hold to the foresight faith view and thus dismissed every other view out there without giving it fair and objective consideration?
     
  2. Fred's Wife

    Fred's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some Lessons About Election for Salvation

    1. Election is based on God's foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).

    2. Election means God planned man's salvation before the creation (Ephesians 1:5,11). It means God, by his foreknowledge, has predestinated the Christian to a glorious future (1 Peter 1:2-4; Romans 8:29-30). It is not who is predestinated, but to what we are predestinated.

    3. Election does not mean God arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will not be. He has revealed that He wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9).

    “The elect are the ‘whosoever wills’; the non-elect are the ‘whosoever wont's.’”...D. L. Moody
     
  3. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I think understanding God as atemporal helps in reconciling this issue. It isn't that God is isolated to understanding our existence along our lines, but sees all things outside of linearity.

    Applying this with a reasonable dose of molinism then helps squares up how we can have free moral agency without necessitating determinism.
     
  4. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    I try to stay away from these discussions, but let me drive by and throw a couple of things into the mix.

    First, about corporate election: In Romans 9, Paul writes of both corporate and individual election. With regard to national Israel, it is an election to position and advantage.

    Then, Paul writes of a remnant of Israel according to the election of grace. (Chap 11)

    Otherwise, It is personal and it is discriminatory. In Romans 9:18, Paul writes that God will have mercy on whom he wants to, and will harden whom he wants to. This can only speak of individuals.

    Further, God saves individuals. This involves his purpose to save them. Since God is immutable, he has always purposed to save them. From eternity. Another word for this purpose is election. Of individuals.
     
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    :thumbs: Sounds like a good summary of the Corporate view of election, though I presume some will take the phrase, "God planned man's salvation before the creation," to mean that God planned for some individuals to believe and thus be saved, because they can't seem to view any phrase having to do with salvation and election from the corporate perspective... .
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally agree.

    Paul, for example, was clearly a Jew chosen of a noble purpose (apostleship) while the rest were being hardened (ignoble purpose).

    I agree again.

    Right. Like Paul, who is fulfilling the purpose that Israel was elected to begin with...to take the message of redemption to the rest of the world.

    I agree. But doesn't the individual Jew who is hardened in Romans 9 have the ability to be provoked to envy and be saved in Romans 11:14? Doesn't the Jew who is cut off from the tree have the ability to be grafted back in if they leave their unbelief? ...Romans 11:14-32

    Agree. "Whosoever" is an individual.
     
  8. jonathanD

    jonathanD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both depend upon libertarian or contra-causal freedom. That is something I have not been convinced actually exists.
     
  9. MorseOp

    MorseOp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skan, what is the material difference between the two views? Both depend on man's choice in order for God to elect them. I don't see the difference.
     
  10. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    As I posted in another thread, there was this man who viewed election as follows:
    "God votes for you.
    Satan votes against you, and
    Then I get to cast the deciding vote!!"

    Problems with that view:
    1) Satan isn't a registered voter, and
    2) You were too young to be eligible to vote when the election took place!!!

    :thumbs:
     
  11. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is Mr. Clarkes reasoning, I think very compelling for me.

    Verse 12. The elder shall serve the younger These words, with those of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, are cited by the apostle to prove, according to their typical signification, that the purpose of God, according to election, does and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; that is, that the purpose of God, which is the ground of that election which he makes among men, unto the honor of being Abrahams seed, might appear to remain unchangeable in him; and to be even the same which he had declared unto Abraham. That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Genesis 32:4; 33:8, 13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacobs posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esaus posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

    From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Malachi 1:2, 3, fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Moses concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachis time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Malachi 1:2-5. To this the Lord answers: Was not Esau Jacobs brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

    It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste. Now, if the prophet speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle speaks of them in the same way.

    If neither the prophet nor the apostle speaks of the persons of Jacob or Esau, but of their posterity, then it is evident that neither the love of God to Jacob, nor the hatred of God to Esau, were such, according to which the eternal states of men, either in happiness or misery, are to be determined; nor is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavored to build on these scriptures.

    For, It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity.

    The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esaus posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacobs posterity elected.

    Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation.

    Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob.

    Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity.

    The scope of the apostles reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.

    Therefore, He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.

    When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.

    He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained ONLY by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are NOW laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.

    That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses, was no mean proof that God had forgiven him. See our Lords words, Matthew 6:14. Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity.

    And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favor, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; two manner of nations are in thy womb-and the elder shall serve the younger.

    There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands. See Goodwins Exposition: and see my notes on Gen. 27.
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,376
    Likes Received:
    728


    Nope. That was not Pauls conclusion. More later....still working.
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    The material difference is that, like Calvinism, the foresight faith view presumes an individualized perspective. (i.e. God has chosen a specific individual to be adopted, justified, sanctified, glorified). Where as the 'Corporate View' takes a general perspective (i.e. God has predestined/chosen to adopt, justify, sanctify and glorify who ever believes in Christ regardless of their nationality)

    When it says, "...he predestined us to adoption..." You must ask two questions:
    1. Who is predestined?
    2. What are they predestined to?​

    The Calvinists answers:

    1. Us = Specific unconditionally chosen individuals
    2. To what = become believers and thus adopted.

    The Corporate Non-Calvinistic answers:
    1. Us = Believers
    2. To what = Adoption​
     
    #13 Skandelon, Jul 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2012
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was his exact conclusion in Romans 9:

    25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26 and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "​

    The so-called 'elect ones' of that day were thought of as being the JEWS, and God was making the non-elect (Gentiles) his elect and the elect (Jews) his non-elect. Roman 11 explains this very clearly using the analogy of grafting into a tree.
     
  15. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,376
    Likes Received:
    728
    romans 11 does explain it;
    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
    6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

    7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

    an ELECT REMNANT of Israel.....and formerly non covenant people[elect gentiles]


    30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

    31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

    32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
     
  16. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's right, Icon, good quote!
     
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    46

    Actually, the 'whosoever wills' groups ARE the elect of God, as He chose them to get saved Himself, NOT them choosing Him first! As the Lord has to grant them the wills to actually come to jesus to be saved!
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    46
    Don't both camps within Arminians still though have SAME basis for their election, as its by their 'free will response" to the Lord jesus?
     
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe, but the foresight faith view makes the same error that Calvinists make by assuming election is about God choosing individuals from various nations to save, when clearly it is about God choosing to save whosoever believes regardless of what nationality they are.

    Election is not about God looking into the future to see what we will do and then making choices based on what he sees. That is absurd to me. Election is about revelation. God chooses to reveal himself and grant entrance into a covenant relationship to Israel first, and then to all. This is the "TREE" referred in by Paul in Romans 11. Israel is being 'cut off' of it because of their unbelief and the Gentiles are being 'grafted into it.' What does that mean for the individuals in these two major groups? It means they have been invited to the wedding banquet, as the invitations went out first to the Jew and then the Gentile. But it is up the individual if they come clothed in the righteousness of Christ. "Many are called (corporately grafted in), but few are chosen (individually saved)."
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,001
    Likes Received:
    46

    Still have SAME basic problem 'classic' Arminians have though...

    Sinners cannot receive jesus and be saved in their current 'natural" states!

    Free will option not available!
     

Share This Page

Loading...