Arminianism Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ==Theology== ===Theological legacy=== The original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius are commonly called Arminianism, but more broadly, the term may embrace the teachings of [[Simon Episcopius]],{{sfn|Episcopius|Ellis|2005|p=8|ps=. "Episcopius was singularly responsible for the survival of the Remonstrant movement after the Synod of Dort. We may rightly regard him as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers."}} [[Hugo Grotius]], [[John Wesley]], and others. Arminian theology usually falls into one of two groups: Classical Arminianism, drawn from the teaching of Jacobus Arminius, and Wesleyan Arminianism, drawing primarily from Wesley. The two groups overlap substantially. In 529, at the [[Council of Orange (529)|Second Council of Orange]], the question at hand was whether the doctrines of Augustine on God's providence were to be affirmed, or if [[semi-Pelagianism]] could be affirmed. Semi-Pelagianism was a moderate form of [[Pelagianism]] that teaches that the first step of salvation is by human will and not the [[Grace (Christianity)|grace]] of God.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=160}} The determination of the Council could be considered "semi-Augustinian".{{sfn|Oakley|1988|p=64}}{{sfn|Thorsen|2007|loc=ch. 20.3.4}}{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}} It defined that faith, though a free act of man, resulted, even in its beginnings, from the grace of God, enlightening the [[Christian anthropology|human mind]] and enabling belief.{{sfn|Denzinger|1954|loc=ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 5–7}}{{sfn|Pickar|1981|p=797|loc=ch. Faith}}{{sfn|Cross|2005|p=701}} This describes the operation of [[prevenient grace]] allowing the unregenerate to repent in faith.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=81}}{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=153}} On the other hand, the Council of Orange condemned the Augustinian teaching of predestination to damnation.{{sfn|Denzinger|1954|loc=ch. Second Council of Orange, art. 199|ps=. "We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil."}} Since Arminianism is aligned with those characteristic semi-Augustinian views,{{sfn|Bounds|2011|pp=39–43}} it has been seen by some as a reclamation of [[early church]] theological consensus.{{sfn|Keathley|2014|p=703|loc=ch. 12}} Moreover, Arminianism can also be seen as a soteriological diversification of Calvinism{{sfn|Magnusson|1995|p=62}} or more specifically, as a theological middle ground between Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=6}} ===Classical Arminianism=== [[File:Simon_Episcopius,_by_Anonymous.jpg|thumb|right|Portrait of [[Simon Episcopius]], (Anonymous)]] Classical Arminianism is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by some of the Remonstrants.{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=137}} Theologians as Forlines and Olson have referred to this system as "classical Arminianism",{{sfn|Forlines|2011}}{{sfn|Olson|2009}} while others as Picirilli and Pinson prefer to term it "Reformation Arminianism"{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=1}} or "Reformed Arminianism".{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=149–150}} The teachings of Arminius held to ''[[Sola fide]]'' and ''[[Sola gratia]]'' of the [[Reformation]], but they were distinct from particular teachings of [[Martin Luther]], [[Huldrych Zwingli]], [[John Calvin]], and other [[Protestant Reformers]].{{sfn|Pinson|2003|pp=135, 139}} Classical Arminianism was originally articulated in the ''[[Five Articles of Remonstrance]]''. "These points", note Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, "are consistent with the views of Arminius; indeed, some come verbatim from his ''Declaration of Sentiments''."{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}} A list of beliefs of classical Arminianism is given below: ====God's providence and human free will==== Arminianism accepts [[classical theism]], which states that God is [[Omnipresence|omnipresent]], [[Omnipotence|omnipotent]], and [[Omniscience|omniscient]].{{sfn|Olson|2009|pp=90–91}} In that view, God's power, knowledge, and presence have no external limitations, that is, outside of his divine nature and character. Besides, Arminianism view on God's [[Sovereignty of God in Christianity|sovereignty]] is based on postulates stemming from God's character, especially as fully revealed in Jesus Christ.{{sfn|Olson|2014|p=11}} On the first hand, divine election must be defined in such a way that God is not in any case, and even in a secondary way, the author of [[evil]]. It would not correspond to the character of God.{{sfn|Olson|2013a|ps=. "Basic to Arminianism is God's love. The fundamental conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism is not ''sovereignty'' but ''God's character''. ''If Calvinism is true, God is the author of sin, evil, innocent suffering and hell''. [...] Let me repeat. The most basic issue is ''not'' providence or predestination or the sovereignty of God. The most basic issue is ''God's character''."}} On the other hand, man's responsibility for evil must be preserved.{{sfn|Olson|2010|ps=. "Classical Arminianism does NOT say God never interferes with free will. It says God NEVER foreordains or renders certain evil. [...] An Arminian COULD believe in divine dictation of Scripture and not do violence to his or her Arminian beliefs. [...] Arminianism is not in love with libertarian free will –as if that were central in and of itself. Classical Arminians have gone out of our way (beginning with Arminius himself) to make clear that our sole reasons for believe in free will AS ARMINIANS [...] are 1) to avoid making God the author of sin and evil, and 2) to make clear human responsibility for sin and evil."}} Those two postulates require a specific way by which God chooses to manifest his sovereignty when interacting with his creatures. On one hand, it requires for God to operate according to a limited mode of [[Divine providence|providence]]. This means that God deliberately exercises sovereignty without determining every event. On the other hand, it requires for God's [[Election in Christianity|election]] to be a "[[predestination]] by foreknowledge".{{sfn|Olson| 2018|ps=. "What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without "prevenient grace" (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. "A" is called "limited providence," "B" is called "predestination by foreknowledge.""}} In that respect, God's foreknowledge reconciles with human free will in the following way: Human [[Free will in theology|free will]] is limited by original sin, though God's [[prevenient grace]] restores to humanity the ability to accept God's call of salvation.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=42–43, 59-}}{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=146–147}} God's foreknowledge of the future is exhaustive and complete, and therefore the future is certain and not [[Contingency (philosophy)|contingent]] on human action. God does not determine the future, but He does know it. God's certainty and human contingency are compatible.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=40}} Roger Olson expressed those defining ideas in a more practical way: ""Arminianism," [...] is simply a term we use in theology for the view, held by some people before Arminius and many after him, that sinners who hear the [[gospel]] have the free will to accept or reject God's offer of saving grace and that nobody is excluded by God from the possibility of salvation except those who freely exclude themselves. But true, historical, classical Arminianism includes the belief that this free will [to repent and believe unto salvation] is itself a gift of God through prevenient grace."{{sfn|Olson|2017}} ====Condition of humanity==== [[Total depravity|Depravity is total]]: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=526}} ====Extent and nature of the atonement==== [[Unlimited atonement|Atonement is intended for all]]: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through [[Faith in Christianity|faith]].{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=316}} [[Atonement (satisfaction view)|Jesus's death satisfies God's justice]]: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through the [[Crucifixion of Jesus|crucifixion of Christ]]. Thus Christ's death atones for the sins of all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy [...] or that man is justified before God [...] according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=454}} Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be [[Justification (theology)|justified]]: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=140}} W. Stephen Gunter concurs that Arminius would not take a rigid position on the doctrine of [[imputed righteousness]] (the righteousness of Christ is imputed for righteousness of the believer).{{sfn|Gann|2014}} For Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Arminius would not object to saying rather that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to righteousness".{{sfn|Gann|2014}} Forlines put it this way: "On the condition of faith, we are placed in [[union with Christ]]. Based on that union, we receive His death and righteousness".{{sfn|Forlines|2011|p=403}} Christ's atonement has a substitutionary effect which is limited only to the elect. Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied by [[penal substitution]].{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=140–}} Hugo Grotius taught that it was satisfied [[Governmental theory of atonement|governmentally]].{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=132}} According to Roger Olson, historical and contemporary Arminians have held to one of these views.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=224|loc={{zwnj}}}} ====Conversion of man==== God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace, often called [[Prevenient grace|''prevenient'' grace]], acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to [[Regeneration (theology)|regeneration]] unless finally resisted."{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=154-}} The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied.{{sfn|Forlines|2001|pp=313–321}} Man has a freed will to respond or resist: Free will is granted and limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=142}} Conversion is [[Synergism|synergistic]]: As Roger Olson put it: "[Arminius]' evangelical synergism reserves all the power, ability and efficacy in salvation to grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it. The only "contribution" humans make is nonresistance to grace."{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=165}} ====Election of man==== [[Conditional election|Election is conditional]]: Arminius defined ''election'' as "the decree of God by which, of Himself, from eternity, He decreed to justify in Christ, believers, and to accept them unto eternal life."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=311}} God alone determines who will be saved and his determination is that all who believe Jesus through faith will be justified. According to Arminius, "God regards no one in Christ unless they are engrafted in him by faith."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=311}} [[Predestination|God predestines the elect]] to a glorious future: Predestination is not the predetermination of who will believe, but rather the predetermination of the believer's future inheritance. The elect are therefore predestined to sonship through [[Adoption (theology)|adoption]], [[Glorification (theology)|glorification]], and [[Eternal life (Christianity)|eternal life]].{{sfn|Pawson| 1996|pp=109-}} ====Preservation of man==== Related to [[Christian eschatology|eschatological]] considerations, Jacobus Arminius{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=376|ps=. "First, you say, and truly, that hell-fire is the punishment ordained for sin and the transgression of the law."}} and the first Remonstrants, including [[Simon Episcopius]]{{sfn|Episcopius|Ellis|2005|loc=ch. 20, item 4}} believed in [[Lake of fire|everlasting fire]] where the [[Wickedness|wicked]] are thrown by God at [[judgment day]]. [[Conditional preservation of the saints|Preservation is conditional]]: All believers have full [[Assurance (theology)|assurance of salvation]] with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=203}} Arminius believed the Scriptures taught that believers are graciously empowered by Christ and the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] "to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies."{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|pp=219–220}} Furthermore, Christ and the Spirit are ever present to aid and assist believers through various temptations. But this security was not unconditional but conditional—"provided they [believers] stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from [[Backsliding|falling]]."{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|pp=465, 466|ps=. "This seems to fit with Arminius' other statements on the need for perseverance in faith. For example: "God resolves to receive into favor those who repent and believe, and to save in Christ, on account of Christ, and through Christ, those who persevere [in faith], but to leave under sin and wrath those who are impenitent and unbelievers, and to condemn them as aliens from Christ"."}}{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|pp=412, 413|ps=. "[God] wills that they, who believe and persevere in faith, shall be saved, but that those, who are unbelieving and impenitent, shall remain under condemnation".}} ====Possibility of apostasy==== Arminius believed in the possibility for a believer to commit [[Apostasy in Christianity|apostasy]] (i.e., desert Christ by cleaving again to this evil world, losing a good conscience, or by failing to hold on to sound doctrine). However, over the period of time Arminius wrote on this question,{{sfn|Stanglin|Muller|2009}} he sometimes expressed himself more cautiously out of consideration for the faith of his readers.{{sfn|Cameron|1992|p=226}} For instance, Arminius declared in 1599 that this matter required further study in the [[Religious text|Scriptures]].{{sfn|Arminius|1853b|pp=219–220|loc=A Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans|ps=. [1599]}} Arminius said also in his "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607), "I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding."{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=665|ps=. "William Nichols notes: "Arminius spoke nearly the same modest words when interrogated on this subject in the last Conference which he had with Gomarus [a Calvinist], before the states of Holland, on the 12th of Aug. 1609, only two months prior to his decease"".}} But in his other writings he expressed certainty about the possibility of falling away: Arminius wrote in ca. 1602, that "a person who is being 'built' into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process". Concerning the believers he said "It may suffice to encourage them, if they know that no power or prudence can dislodge them from the rock, unless they of their own will forsake their position."{{sfn|Oropeza|2000|p=16|ps=. "Although Arminius denied having taught final apostasy in his ''Declaration of Sentiments'', in the ''Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination'' [ca. 1602] he writes that "a person who is being 'built' into the church of Christ may resist the continuation of this process". Concerning the believers, "It may suffice to encourage them, if they know that no power or prudence can dislodge them from the rock, unless they of their own will forsake their position."}}{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=455|loc=Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination|ps=. [ca. 1602]}} He continued by saying that the covenant of God (Jeremiah 23) "does not contain in itself an impossibility of defection from God, but a promise of the gift of fear, whereby they shall be hindered from going away from God so long as that shall flourish in their hearts."{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|p=458|loc=Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination|ps=. [ca. 1602]}} He then taught that had King David died in his sins he would have been lost.{{sfn|Arminius|1853c|pp=463–464|loc=Examination of the Treatise of Perkins on the Order and Mode of Predestination|ps=. [ca. 1602]}}{{sfn|Gann|2014}} In 1602, Arminius also wrote: "A believing member of Christ may become slothful, give place to sin, and gradually die altogether, ceasing to be a member".{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=667|loc=Disputation 25, on Magistracy|ps=. [1602]}} For Arminius, a certain class of sin would cause a believer to fall, especially sin motivated by malice.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Stanglin|2007|p=137}} In 1605 Arminius wrote: “But it is possible for a believer to fall into a mortal sin, as is seen in David. Therefore he can fall at that moment in which if he were to die, he would be condemned".{{sfn|Arminius|1853a|p=388|loc=Letter to Wtenbogaert, trans. as ''Remarks on the Preceding Questions, and on those opposed to them''|ps=. [1605]}} Stanglin, along with McCall, point out that Arminius clearly sets forth two paths to apostasy 1. "rejection", or 2. "malicious sinning".{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}}{{sfn|Gann|2014}} Oropeza concludes: "If there is any consistency in Arminius' position, he did not seem to deny the possibility of falling away".{{sfn|Oropeza|2000|p=16|loc={{zwnj}}}} After the death of Arminius in 1609, his followers wrote a ''[[Five Articles of Remonstrance|Remonstrance]]'' (1610) based quite literally on their leader's "Declaration of Sentiments" (1607) which expressed prudence on the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=190}} In particular, its fifth article expressed the necessity of further study on the possibility of apostasy.{{sfn|Schaff|2007}} Sometime between 1610 and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the [[Remonstrants]] became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally as an unbeliever. They formalized their views in "The Opinion of the Remonstrants" (1618) which was their official stand during the Synod of Dort.{{sfn|De Jong|1968|pp=220-|loc=art. 5, points 3–4|ps=. "True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish."}} Picirilli remarks: "Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger."{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|p=198}} They later expressed this same view in the ''[[Remonstrant Confession]]'' (1621).{{sfn|Witzki|2010}} ====Forgivability of apostasy==== Stanglin points out that Arminius held that if the apostasy came from "malicious" sin, then it was forgivable.{{sfn|Gann|2014}}{{sfn|Stanglin|McCall|2012|p=174}} If it came from "rejection" it was not.{{sfn|Stanglin|2007|p=139}} Following Arminius, the Remonstrants believed that, though possible, apostasy was not in general irremediable.{{sfn|De Jong|1968|pp=220-|loc=chap. 5.5|ps=. "Nevertheless we do not believe that true believers, though they may sometimes fall into grave sins which are vexing to their consciences, immediately fall out of every hope of repentance; but we acknowledge that it can happen that God, according to the multitude of His mercies, may recall them through His grace to repentance; in fact, we believe that this happens not infrequently, although we cannot be persuaded that this will certainly and indubitably happen."}} However, other classical Arminians as the [[Free Will Baptist]]s have taught that apostasy is irremediable.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=204-}}{{sfn|Pinson|2002|p=159}} ===Wesleyan Arminianism=== [[File:John Wesley by George Romney.jpg|thumb|right|Portrait of [[John Wesley]], by [[George Romney (painter)|George Romney]]]] {{further|Wesleyan theology|Methodism}} [[John Wesley]] thoroughly agreed with the vast majority of what Arminius himself taught.{{sfn|Gunter|2007|p=82}} Wesleyan Arminianism is classical Arminianism with the addition of [[Wesleyan perfectionism]].{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=189|loc=note 20}}{{sfn|Sayer|2006|loc=Ch. Wesleyan-Arminian theology|ps=. "Evangelical Wesleyan-Arminianism has as its center the merger of both Wesley's concept of holiness and Arminianism's emphasis on synergistic soteriology."}} Here are mentioned some positions on specific issues within Wesleyan Arminianism: ====Nature of the atonement==== Steven Harper proposed that Wesley's atonement is a hybrid of the [[penal substitution]] theory and the [[Atonement (Governmental view)|governmental]] theory.{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=227-|ps=. "Wesley does not place the substitionary element primarily within a legal framework [...] Rather [his doctrine seeks] to bring into proper relationship the 'justice' between God's love for persons and God's hatred of sin [...] it is not the satisfaction of a legal demand for justice so much as it is an act of mediated reconciliation."}} However, theologians Robert Picirilli, Roger Olson and Darren Cushman Wood consider that the view of Wesley concerning atonement is by penal substitution.{{sfn|Picirilli|2002|pp=104–105, 132–}}{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=224|ps=. "Arminius did not believe [in the governmental theory of atonement], neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians."}}{{sfn|Wood|2007|p=67}} Wesleyan Arminians have historically adopted either the penal or governmental theory of atonement.{{sfn|Olson|2009|p=224|loc={{zwnj}}}} ====Preservation and apostasy of man==== Wesley accepted the Arminian view that genuine Christians could [[Apostasy in Christianity|apostatize]] and lose their salvation, as his famous sermon "A Call to Backsliders" clearly demonstrates. Harper summarizes as follows: "the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation [...] the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy."{{sfn|Pinson|2002|pp=239–240}} Wesley believed that such apostasy was not irremediable. When talking about those who have made "shipwreck" of their faith,(1 Tim 1:19) Wesley claims that "not one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands [...] innumerable are the instances [...] of those who had fallen but now stand upright."{{sfn|Wesley|Emory|1835|p=247|loc="A Call to Backsliders"}} ====Christian perfection==== One issue that typifies Wesleyan Arminianism is [[Christian perfection]].{{sfn|Heron|1999|p=128}} According to Wesley's teaching, Christians could attain a state of practical perfection, meaning a lack of all voluntary sin by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, in this life. Christian perfection (or ''entire sanctification''), according to Wesley, is "purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God" and "the mind which was in Christ, enabling us to walk as Christ walked." It is "loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves".{{sfn|Wesley|1827|p=66|loc="A Plain Account of Christian Perfection"}} It is "a restoration not only to the favour, but likewise to the image of God," our "being filled with the fullness of God".{{sfn|Wesley|Emory|1835|p=73|loc="The End of Christ's Coming"}} Wesley was clear that Christian perfection did not imply perfection of bodily health or an infallibility of judgment. It also does not mean we no longer violate the will of God, for involuntary transgressions remain. Perfected Christians remain subject to temptation, and have continued need to pray for forgiveness and holiness. It is not an absolute perfection but a perfection in love. Furthermore, Wesley did not teach a salvation by perfection, but rather says that, "Even perfect holiness is acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Wesley|1827|p=45|loc="Of Christian Perfection"}} ===Other variations=== ====Corporate view of election==== {{Main|Corporate election}} The majority Arminian view is that election is individual and based on God's foreknowledge of faith. According to the corporate election view, God never chose individuals to elect to salvation, but rather He chose to elect the believing church to salvation.{{sfn|Ridderbos|1997|p=351|ps=. "[The certainty of salvation] does not rest on the fact that the church belongs to a certain "number", but that it belongs to Christ, from before the foundation of the world. Fixity does not lie in a hidden decree, therefore, but in corporate unity of the Church with Christ, whom it has come to know in the gospel and has learned to embrace in faith."}} Jesus was the only human ever elected and individuals must be "in Christ" through faith to be part of the elect.{{sfn|Walls|Dongell|2004|p=76|ps=. "The most conspicuous feature of Ephesians 1:3–2:10 is the phrase 'in Christ', which occurs twelve times in Ephesians 1:3–14 alone [...] this means that Jesus Christ himself is the chosen one, the predestined one. Whenever one is incorporated into him by grace through faith, one comes to share in Jesus' special status as chosen of God."}}{{sfn|Barth|1974|p=108|ps=. "Election in Christ must be understood as the election of God's people. Only as members of that community do individuals share in the benefits of God's gracious choice."}} Corporate election draws support from a similar concept of corporate election found in the Old Testament and Jewish law. Identity stemmed from membership in a group more than individuality.{{sfn|Abasciano|2005|p=}} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page