Individualistic vs Corporate interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
In reading Tom Holland (a virulent critic of NT Wright and the NPP assumptions), I seem to keep coming across the notion that Augustine 'individualized' everything. For instance, many of our so called interpretations trend toward personalizing texts which he thinks are corporate i.e. parts of Galatians and Romans being about the corporate idea of 'justification' of the Gentiles and that individually we partake (of the 'justification' that took place at the cross by faith.) While, I do not disagree, it is a novel way of talking that seems wrong. In many instances, he says it cannot be extrapolated to the individual. I will have to find more examples. But, how does one counter this? Not trying to committ a fallacy, do not many corporate texts apply to the individual?
 
The only argument that could prevail would be that there is nothing but corporate election, justification, etc. It is an argument that cannot be made from Scripture.

We need only look to Romans 9-11 as a ready example of an election of a nation, yet an individual election according to grace (Romans 11:5) of a remnant from out of that corporate, ethnic, mass. In short, notions of corporate election are quite meaningless if there is no individual election.
 
There is a corporate dimension and it is easy to miss, especially if one is in cage-stage mode. But it's also hard to imagine that God, who knows the end from the beginning, doesn't know who is elect, and it is hard to ignore that in the reading.

I don't think Augustine is guilty of this, though. Sure, there is an individualizing in his theology, and while he held to predestination, he was also strong on corporate life of the church as it related to final salvation. See his essay on the Care of the Dead.
 
There is a corporate dimension and it is easy to miss, especially if one is in cage-stage mode. But it's also hard to imagine that God, who knows the end from the beginning, doesn't know who is elect, and it is hard to ignore that in the reading.

I don't think Augustine is guilty of this, though. Sure, there is an individualizing in his theology, and while he held to predestination, he was also strong on corporate life of the church as it related to final salvation. See his essay on the Care of the Dead.
I see. Is there a historical argument to counter the argument that Augustinians and the Western Church were novel in the individual approach?
 
The only argument that could prevail would be that there is nothing but corporate election, justification, etc. It is an argument that cannot be made from Scripture.

We need only look to Romans 9-11 as a ready example of an election of a nation, yet an individual election according to grace (Romans 11:5) of a remnant from out of that corporate, ethnic, mass. In short, notions of corporate election are quite meaningless if there is no individual election.
Would this be like when many Arminians would see corporate election in regards to salvation, as in God elected the Church itself, and we decide to enter into her?
 
A couple of examples that I recall: Romans 6, 7 are about a peoples (Israel and Gentiles) being baptized and freed and cannot be reduced to individual experience. Also, sarx in Romans 8 refers to unbelivers and not the inner man of individuals.
A false dichotomy? It seems such views render nill, the ongoing work and experiences of sanctification that has been held for centuries.
Edit: Granted, Holland is reformed but says we use the wrong texts. I wonder then, what is left?
 
Last edited:
Would this be like when many Arminians would see corporate election in regards to salvation, as in God elected the Church itself, and we decide to enter into her?
Basically, yes. But, Arminians also have the view that God "peeks" and sees who will say "yes" to the Good News, and declares all those He has foreseen to accept the faith as "the elect". Naturally, this view implies merit of man is at work and God is merely "rubber stamping" their wise decision. In effect the view makes God a debtor. May it never be!
 
I see. Is there a historical argument to counter the argument that Augustinians and the Western Church were novel in the individual approach?

I don't know. You don't find hard-core predestinarians in the Eastern church, and for every 1 sentence from an Eastern Father that looks like individual election, you will find a thousand to the contrary. The East is very strong on Free Will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top