This will be the last of the series on the views of election presented by Chad Owen Brand in Perspectives on Election.
<<<<<< Time for some to celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>
Okay. Welcome back. The last essay in the election series is written by Clark H. Pinnock, Professor Emeritus at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. Pinnock argues for election being seen as corporate, open, and vocational. According to Dr. Pinnock, "Election is not about the destiny of individual persons for salvation or damnation but about God's calling a people who in the New Testament setting live according to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and proclaim good news to the world" (279). In other words, election is open to all and missional.
It's interesting that Pinnock would place election in the category of ecclesiology rather than soteriology (Calvin) or Theology Proper (Barth). In other words, he maintains election is inclusive, rather than exclusive, (281). Within the common texts of election, Pinnock interprets them not as individualistic but as speaking of a "class" of people. As an example, Dr. Pinnock points out Exodus 19:5-6. Now therefore, if you (Israelites) obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation... (NRSV) "Israel was not called to an exclusive salvation but to a priestly vocation intended to bring the whole world to God" (Pinnock 287).
When God does call individuals, he does so for service to others. In the Old Testament, God chose/elected Abraham, Moses, Nehemiah, David, and the Prophets for specific tasks within or for the community at large. In the New Testament, Pinnock points out Jesus chose the apostles to carry out God's mission throughout the world (294).
As you might imagine, the views of Dr. Pinnock are quickly dismissed by Ware, Reymond, and Talbott.
Now it's your turn. Any thoughts?
Jesus, king on his terms, not ours
8 hours ago
Posts
4 comments:
I don't know, Crowm. Go to Witherington's blog and see his recent good post on Piper and why Calvinists are negative. I have an inherent distrust of all this systematic theology which tries to oversimplify things I'm afraid.
I do tend to see election as bigger than soteriological, but not excluding it. I'm not sure we can so neatly categorize everything, as some theologians seem to think. Though maybe it's just a weariness in me from it all, seeing Christians divide over matters in which Scripture is not as clear as people think. But just my take for now, and at the moment.
Hey Ted!
I've seen Witherington's post and I think Piper brings up good points (regarding Calvinists and Arminians).
I think your "distrust" of this systematic theology is warranted. I have the same concerns. It's one of the reasons I really appreciate this series of books.
On a final note, your thought that election is contained in (but is not limited to) soteriology is a good one. I would say that's why Barth put election in Proper Theology. For some theologians today, that seems to be a "cop-out". But I can understand why Barth held the views he did.
Hi Mike,
I see election as corporate and focused on Christ, however, I also believe it is based on God's foreknowledge. The Father elects those who he knows will believe in Jesus.
I'm not sure that Pinnick would agree with the foreknowledge aspect.
Does Cottrel comment on Pinnock's view?
Hlo Kevin,
You're right on with Cottrell here. Cottrell agrees with much of what Pinnock says. And disagrees with one area particularly.
Cottrell doesn't see election as just being corporate and vocational throughout Scripture. In other words, although that seems to be the case in Rom 9, it doesn't play out in other passages. He also has a problem with Pinnock's view of foreknowledge. For Cottrell, election is not about either/or but both/and (election for salvation and for service).
I hope that helps.
Post a Comment