Wesleyan-Arminianism Approach to Romans 9:14-25

According to Wesleyan-Arminianism approach, God did chose the elect collectively, and not individually. James Arminius rightly argued that, “Esau and Jacob are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, and be that which is attributed to them, is to be accommodated to the antitypes, or rather to the things signified” (Arminius 1853: 535-6).

Concurring with Arminius, Thomas R. Schreiner assembled scholars to validation the notion that Romans 9, if indeed refers to salvation[1], “describes the salvation of groups, not the salvation of individuals”(Schreiner 1993: 33). He concluded,

Thus William Klein says that “Paul’s concern is the elect people of God, a corporate entity.”²⁷Leon Morris says, “It seems clear that Paul intends a reference to nations rather than individuals.”²⁸ This interpretation is supported by showing that Paul is thinking of the nation of the Edomites in contrast to Israel (cf. Gen 25:13). Thus Cranfield says, “There is no doubt that the concern of Mal. 1.2-5 is with the nations of Israel and Edom, and it is natural to suppose that by ‘Jacob’ and ‘Esau’ Paul also understands not only the twin sons of Isaac but also the peoples descended from them. ²⁹ (ibid)

The reason, admitted Schreiner, that scholars who press for the distinction corporate election rather than individual” is for “one to see that God does not elect some individuals to salvation and reject others.(ibid 33-34)

Roger Olson also quoted William Klein’s The New Chosen People conclusion that “the New Testament writers address salvific election in primarily, if not exclusively, corporate terms […] God has chosen the church as a body rather than the specific individuals who populate that body.”(129-130)

Brian J. Abasciano finds Schreiner’s[2] “attempt to counter the primacy of corporate election in Romans 9 unpersuasive”(Abasciano 2006: 351-2). According to Abasciano, Schreiner fails to address how the corporate and individual aspects of election do relate to each other. He contended,

If corporate election is primary, then it is the group that is the focus of election, and individuals are elect only in connection with the group. If individual election is primary, then individuals are separately the focus of election, and the group is elect only as a collection of elect individuals. Thus, either the corporate focus of election determines the identity and benefits of the individual based on participation in the group, or the individual focus of election determines the identity and benefits of the group based on the individuals who have been grouped together according to their similar individual characteristics/status.(ibid 353)

Abasciano went on to show that “[f]or if election is primarily individual, then corporate election must equally imply individual election since the identity of the group is entirely determined by the identity of the individuals who make it up”.(ibid)

I am open for comments, critics and edification from my brothers and sisters holding Wesleyan-Arminianism tradition for my reformed bias might have clouded my judgement.

---

[1]  Wright’s New Perspective Approach

[2] Thus going against Arminius’ exposition.

Bibliography:

Abasciano, Brian J. (2006) “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner”. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 4.2 : 351-71

Arminius, J. (1853). The Works of Arminius, Volume 3 (J. Nichols & W. R. Bagnall, Trans.) Auburn; Buffalo: Derby, and Miller; Derby, Orton and Mulligan.

Olson, R. E. (2011). Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

Schreiner, Thomas R. (1993) “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical And Theological Reflections.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 36.1: 25-40