# Second Person Plural?



## arapahoepark (Dec 22, 2014)

I seem to see that a lot of those disagreeing with election and those who opt for a corporate election say that the second person plural in election texts determines that. How is that refuted? Is that an exegetical fallacy as well?


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 23, 2014)

Bump


----------



## thbslawson (Dec 23, 2014)

I've actually never encountered this argument before. Not sure how a second person plural changes things. Even if it were corporate one would have to be "elected" to be part of the group. Perhaps I'm not understanding the argument fully.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 24, 2014)

arap said:


> I seem to see that a lot of those disagreeing with election and those who opt for a corporate election say that the second person plural in election texts determines that. How is that refuted? Is that an exegetical fallacy as well?



What is "corporate election"? God chose a definite number without picking individuals? God chose an indefinite number without picking individuals? Sounds inconsistent with divine omniscience, wisdom, etc, or even consistent with election itself.

In the epistles, Paul and the other NT writers are usually writing to a plurality of persons rather than an individual, which makes the scope for saying "You hath He elected" to an individual limited. 

Also, it is not for us or even an Apostle to know infallibly in any particular case whether someone else is elect or not. 

That is something that the individual soul can know for himself.

"Make your calling and election sure", etc.

There is a sense in which individual adults and children are set apart by birth and God's providence generally to be members of the Visible Church, but this "election", if it can be called such, speaks nothing of their salvation.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Philip (Dec 24, 2014)

I've usually encountered this in two veins. One are folks who are beginning to go more high-church and therefore election is in reference to the church as a whole and so to make your election sure, you need to be in the church visible. The problems with this construal are fairly evident, so I don't need to go into them.

The more sophisticated version is a derivation from Barth's theory of election. In this construal, election is of all humanity in Christ and those who are outside of Christ are those who have rejected God's election in Christ and therefore have placed themselves outside of redeemed humanity. One interesting thing about this construal is that if one were to try and argue for definite atonement on this view, it would, bizarrely, lead to universalism. I'm still attempting to come to grips with this view and understand where the logical problem lies (I'm fairly certain where the exegetical problems are).


----------



## Nomos (Dec 24, 2014)

> What is "corporate election"? God chose a definite number without picking individuals?



I've always wondered the same when it came to this distinction. I fail to understand how 'corporate' election has any meaning outside of individual election.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Dec 25, 2014)

This may help:

View attachment 13-Peterman-BBR_20 2.pdf


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Dec 25, 2014)

Ephesians 1:4–6; 2 Timothy 1:9; James 1:18 (first person plural)

Romans 8:28–30; 2 Timothy 2:10 (third person plural)

The calling of the apostles is a good example of second person singular.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 25, 2014)

Why not see it as both/and? Israel as a nation was certainly "elect" in one sense (they were chosen as a nation by God) but this isn't necessarily contradictory to individual election.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 25, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> Why not see it as both/and? Israel as a nation was certainly "elect" in one sense (they were chosen as a nation by God) but this isn't necessarily contradictory to individual election.



The NT Church is still Israel (Gal 6:16), a remnant of Jews who believe together with Gentiles grafted in among them. So it's "both/and" in the NT, too.

These things, of course, don't help those who wish to "loosen up" election as indicated in the OP.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 26, 2014)

I assume you mean something like 'class election' where God elects the group of people who will believe rather than specific people?

I have trouble fitting that with Acts where there was a riot and after the dist settles "... as many as were appointed to eternal life believed... " sounds like inidivduals to me in some sence

but I don't have a problem with both being true. God elects groups and God elects individuals in the groups


----------

