Do you agree with Brian Abasciano’s corporate election theory? Why or why not?
With regards to corporate election, well of course there is such a thing as corporate election (church, nation) and yes, definitely there is individual election. Even Dr. Abasciano acknowledges this as you quoted above.
However I do not subscribe to Dr. Abasciano’s view because for the following reasons:
1.) Dr. Abasciano engages in word play, argues on semantics and argues fallaciously – No matter how he states it either way, the group and the individual are inseparable. There is no group without the individual, no “ekklesia” without the “called out ones.” His insistence on somehow drawing a fine line between corporate election and individual election borders on committing the fallacy of equivocation. Trying to make a distinction when there should be none and then saying that both views are logically coherent, borders on the fallacy of circular reasoning. Of course, it is logically coherent because without the members in the group there is no such thing as the group. In one sense election is corporate but in another sense election it is also individualistic. (This argument is similar to the debate on the members of the universal church and the local church wherein its members are inseparable from both.)
Look at the incoherency of his statement with my comments enclosed:
Most simply, corporate election refers to the choice of a group, which entails the choice of its individual members by virtue of their membership in the group. (Election? And then he is talking about choice? What kind of election is this when an individual and the group are free to make a choice? He clearly must have a different kind of ‘election’ in mind.) Thus, individuals are not elected as individuals directly, but secondarily as members of the elect group. (But he just said that an individual becomes a part of the group through their choice, so how can he/she be elected?) Nevertheless, corporate election necessarily entails a type of individual election because of the inextricable connection between any group and the individuals who belong to it. (Of course, because you cannot separate the individual from the group, this is probably the only logical thing he said in this paragraph.)
Individuals are elected as a consequence of their membership in the group. (Again, how can they be elected into the group when he just said that being in the group is their choice?) (Then he argues in circles and tries to explain the messed up argument.) In other words, the group is chosen as a consequence of the fact that each individual in the group was individually chosen. (So, meaning the group cannot be chosen if the individuals are not chosen. But how can the individuals be chosen if they were the ones who made the choice to be in the group?)
Hence, the real question regarding the election of God’s covenant people is: which election is primary, that of the group or that of the individual? Both views are logically coherent, and concrete examples can be given of each from everyday life. (Of course, it is coherent again in the sense that there is such a thing as corporate election and there is such a thing as individualistic election, but you cannot separate one from the other or draw distinctions between each.)
2.) Dr. Abasciano’s view is just Arminianism repackaged. Despite his long-winded circular discussion on corporate election, if you strip away most of that, at the end of the day it all boils down to this: Man can freely choose to accept or reject God. An illustration is given by one of the supporters of Abasciano’s views: link here.
He writes:
“Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be His very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and His ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ.”
“The ship (the church) is chosen to obey God to be his very own vessel” – No arguments there, this is corporate election.
“All who desire to be part of this elect ship” – Now this becomes a problem. How can one desire to be a part of this elect ship? How do you explain away all the verses of total depravity? How do you counter the following arguments as supported by verses of Scripture?
– Every descendant of fallen Adam, whether man, woman, or child, proceeding forth by natural generation, is truly and fully sinful. (Psalms 51:5, 58:3, Romans 5:12, 18-19)
– Man is unable to do anything good or virtuous before God (Job 15:14-16, Psalm 130:3, 143:2, Proverbs 20:9, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Isaiah 64:6, Jeremiah 13:23, John 3:19, Romans 3:9-10, 12, James 3:8, 1 John 1:8)
– Man is unable to believe in God or come to Him (John 6:44, 6:65, 8:43-45, 10:26, 12:37-41)
– Man is unable to come to understand the truth (John 14:17, 1 Corinthians 2:14)
– Man is unable to seek God (Romans 3:10-11)
– Man is blind and cannot see the Kingdom of God without being born again/from above (John 3:3, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
– Man is dead in trespasses and sins (Genesis 2:16-17, John 3:5-7, Ephesians 2:1-3, Colossians 2:13)
– Man is blinded and corrupt in heart (Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:20-21, Romans 8:5-8, Ephesians 4:17-19, 5:8)
– Man is in bondage to sin and Satan (John 8:34, 8:44, Romans 6:20, 2 Timothy 2:25-26, Titus 3:3, 1 John 5:19)
“As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect.” – This part clearly exhibits the position’s Arminianism, considering that it alludes to the possibility that one can lose his/her salvation.
The heresy with Arminianism is the fact that it takes human effort to somehow obtain salvation. Man does not have the ability to respond, for we are all totally depraved, dead in trespasses and sins. Salvation is solely the work of God.
In conclusion, in an attempt to discredit the doctrine of Calvinism, Dr. Abasciano resorts to incoherent and logically fallacious arguments and instead presents a form of repackaged Arminianism that has not successfully refuted or presented better arguments against the doctrine of Calvinism. Calvinism has been the dominant view among Protestants since the time of the Reformation (although it declined after the 2nd Great Awakening, it has recently made a comeback over the last decades). It is a doctrine that has withstood the test of time, the scrutiny of church synods, church leaders, theologians, and Christian thinkers, and has been held onto by a long line of theologians, scholars, and pastors.
A good point-by-point counter-argument to Dr. Abasciano’s “Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election” can be found here: link to counter-argument.
Hi ! my name is Zigfred Diaz. Thanks for visiting my personal blog ! Never miss a post from this blog. Subscribe to my full feeds for free. Click here to subscribe to zdiaz.com by Email
You may also want to visit my other blogs. Click here to learn more about great travel ideas.
Leave a Reply