Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[brightfame52]

brightflame52
I just started a thread on Satan in Theology. It's a talk on how the devil lies and perverts scripture.
When I was a child I truly believed he had a pitchfork, like a comic book character and as I grew older didn't give him his due.
When I became aware that I needed our Savior, my source of Information about what God says became a local reformed church where I was told what they believed was the truth and learned that I disagreed with their doctrine I would be asked to leave because that's what happened.
I'm telling you this because for 30 + years a minister of God told me,

Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. 2Cor.11:14-15 NKJV

The same minister told me,

there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Pet.2:1

I've seen things in the Bible that bother me where Orthodox teaching is concerned and I want to know why that things bother me.
God has given me the ability to read, a dictionary and even reserved a few brain cells so I could still understand him. That's all the thread on the devil is about.

I want you to participate in that thread, I'm not asking anyone to throw their beliefs out. I'm asking if we read and understand the Bible without preconceived teaching. That's all. When we read the Bible, what does that mean to us? I don't want dead theologians telling me what you think. I want you to tell me what you think.
I love you and hope you ome.

So do you now understand, man hasnt the ability to believe in Jesus Christ ? Plainly stated by Jesus Christ Himself. Jn 6:44

 

[GodsGrace]

The drawing is salvation, so Jn 12:32 and Jn 6:44 are limited to the saved.

Who cares what they're limited to?

I'm asking you to reconcile two opposing verses.

One says we go to Jesus through God Father.
One says Jesus brings us to God Father.
One says Father draws.
One says Jesus draws.

Which is it?

This is a very easy task, BTW, but, as I've stated many times,
reformed theology messes up scripture to the point that it conflicts with itself.

 

[GodsGrace]

The drawing is salvation, so Jn 12:32 and Jn 6:44 are limited to the saved.

Come on BF, please do this.
Reconcile.

John 6:44 says the Father draws all those that come to Christ.

John 12:32 says that Jesus will draw ALL MEN to Himself.

We need to reconcile the two above verses or I'd say the NT cannot be trusted.

One states those saved,
One states ALL MEN.

Which is it?

 

[GodsGrace]

So do you now understand, man hasnt the ability to believe in Jesus Christ ? Plainly stated by Jesus Christ Himself. Jn 6:44

Where does John 6:44 state anything about ABILITY?

It only states that no one can go to Jesus except through the Father.
There must be some logical explanation for this.
Since John 3:16 states that GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD.....

It doesn't say the world of the saved or the world of the good
it says THE WORLD, that means all of His creation.

 

[T.K. Brown]

What is meant by the term: "free will?"

I think a lot of discussions on this topic hinge on this definition, and people often misunderstand each other here.

By free will, do we mean: "the ability to choose otherwise" or "the ability to not have our actions determined by that which is outside of us?"

Or is our understanding of free will "compatibalist?" That is, do we think "freedom" and "choice" are possible within the context of determinism (be it physical determinism based on the way God made the universe to work, or determinism in terms of God's divine foreknowledge of our actions)?

It seems to me that almost all people believe in choice and freedom in at least some of the terms. Even if we believe in predestination, we also can allow that, in important ways, the people of North Korea are "less free," than the peoples of France or the United States. Further, we all experience a sense of volition, a sense of choosing, for some, but not all of our actions. So, we can agree on the difference between picking a menu item when we go out to eat, and blinking, breathing, or having our heart beat, the latter of which all occur autonomously most of the time.

I feel like freedom is at the center of Christianity. What Saint Paul talks about in Romans 7 is a lack of freedom that occurs when our actions are driven by desire, instinct, and circumstance. Paul notes that in his inner self, he delights in God's law, but he is unable to carry out these actions. He is not a unified person, but rather "at war with the members of his body."

Paul is "dead in sin." Clearly, this is not a biological death. It is a death of personhood, an inability to seek what one truly sees as good.

Obviously, there is still the experience of "choice," in this death. A sinner still knows the difference between chosing to try to seduce their neighbors' wife and blinking or a muscle spasm The former has a volitional aspect. The "lack of choice" instead comes from a lack of ability to order the desires, to make the will a "slave to righteousness," as we would like. Consider how God warns Cain about sin — it will consume him.

I am of the opinion the libertarian free will reveals itself to be contradictory. We cannot be "absolutely" free.

Choice itself implies "choosing between." Suppose I have four options, A, B, C, and D. If I pick A and C, I am not free to have chosen B and D, nor all four options, nor to have refrained from chosing at all. Any definite action constrains freedom. Absolute freedom requires that we make no choices, since all choices are a limit on our freedom. But if we can make no choices while being absolutely free, it seems that absolute freedom collapses into a contradiction.

When we choose something, we either choose it for some reason, or we choose it for no reason at all (it is random action). If it is random action, then it is arbitrary, not free. If we have a reason for chosing something, then those reasons determine our actions.

Our reasons for choosing different things have to do with our beliefs and opinions, our knowledge and judgement. It seems to me like the development of all of these is uniquely tied up with states of affairs in the world, and thus our choices are tied up with (determined by) states of affairs as well. We might choose to love who we love and despise who we despise, but we do so because of who those people are. Thus, those choices are "determined by," who those people have revealed themselves to be.

So, my take would be that freedom is best understood as "self-determination." We are free to the extent that we, as a unified individual (not one divided against himself), determine our own actions. And we are free to the extent that we are authentic to our true nature, the nature God created for us. As Saint Augustine says: "You have made us for yourself O Lord & our heart is restless until it rests in you."

We are truly free when perfected and fulfilling our true purpose, the contemplation of God. So it's not an "either/or" for me. We seem to become freer through our choosing God. Our freedom is tied up in God.

But all freedom is through grace. We do not create ourselves. We are effects of other causes. Thus, man's freedom is always a gift. We cannot be free apart from God, just as we cannot "create ourselves."

With that in mind, it seems to me like we have varying degrees of freedom. A fallen sinner can be free in how they choose to sin to some extent. We can recognize our need for God; as Romans 1:20 says, the signs of the Creator are everywhere. But even if this is brought to our attention, it is still a grace, for we only exist to see such things by grace.

And here is where I sometimes find myself disagreeing with Reformed Theologians I've read. Sometimes, they seem to be saying that we cannot possibly learn about God through mundane means, through meeting a pious Christian, through studying the wonders of physics, etc. Instead, they seem to be saying that any turn towards God requires a sort of magical intervention, as opposed to a "natural" one. But it seems to me like the One who creates and sustains, and who is within all nature, can use nature as way shower us in grace. Christ is the Logos through which all things were made, the Word that speaks being into existence. Thus, all things are a sign of Christ (Saint Bonaventure, "an effect is a sign of its cause.")

So, IMO, a man can come to strive after God in many ways, but the point is that this always involves grace. It couldn't be otherwise unless it was us who created ourselves and our world. And so our freedom to pursue God is always conditional on Grace. Nature itself is a gift of grace, freely shared to all God's creatures.

We can be "free" in some senses, but we are only truly free, free to be our authentic selves, to the extent that we are "in Christ," the extent to which "Christ lives in us." For only God has no limits and is fully self-determining. Only God is fully transcendent, a true infinite. So it is only through God, the way in which we are "in Christ," in the same way that Christ is "in the Father" (John 17), through the Spirit, that we achieve true freedom. Human freedom vis-á-vis nature is only the simulacra of freedom by comparison.

 

[GodsGrace]

What is meant by the term: "free will?"

I think a lot of discussions on this topic hinge on this definition, and people often misunderstand each other here.

By free will, so we mean: "the ability to choose otherwise" or "the ability to not have our actions determined by that which is outside of us?"

Or is our understanding of free will "compatibalist?" That is, do we think "freedom" and "choice" are possible within the context of determinism (be it physical determinism based on the way God made the universe to work, or determinism in terms of God's divine foreknowledge of our actions)?

All people believe in choice and freedom in some sense it seems. Even if we believe in predestination, we also can allow that, in important ways, the people of North Korea are "less free," than the peoples of France or the United States. Further, we all experience a sense of volition, a sense of choosing, for some, but not all of our acts. So, we can agree on the difference between picking a menu item when we go out to eat, and blinking, breathing, or having our heart beat, which all occur autonomously most of the time.

That said, my position is that freedom is at the center of Christianity. What Saint Paul talks about in Romans 7 is a lack of freedom that occurs when our actions are driven by desire, instinct, and circumstance. Paul notes that in his inner self, he delights in God's law, but he is unable to carry out these actions. He is not a unified person, but rather "at war with the members of his body."

Paul is "dead in sin." Clearly, this is not a biological death. It is a death of personhood, and inability to seek what one truly sees as good. Obviously, there is still the experience of "choice," in this death. A sinner still knows the difference between chosing to try to seduce their neighbors' wife and blinking or a muscle spasm, the former as a volition aspect. The lack of choice comes from a lack of ability to order the desires, to make the will a "slave to righteousness," as we might like.

I am of the opinion the libertarian free will reveals itself to be contradictory. We cannot be "absolutely" free. Choice itself implies "choosing between." If I pick A and C, I am not free to have chosen B and D, nor all four options, nor to have refrained from chosing. Any definite action constrains freedom. Absolute freedom requires that we make no choices, since all choices are a limit on our freedom. But if we can make no choices while being absolutely free, it seems that absolute freedom collapses into a contradiction.

When we choose something, we either choose it for some reason, or we choose it for no reason at all (it is random action). If it is random action, then it is arbitrary, not free. If we have a reason for chosing something, then those reasons determine our actions.

Our reasons for choosing different things have to do with our beliefs and opinions, our knowledge and judgement. It seems to me like the development of all of these is uniquely tied up with states of affairs in the world, and thus our choices are tied up with (determined by) states of affairs as well. We might choose to love who we love and despise who we despise, but we do so because of who those people are. Thus, those choices are "determined by," who those people have revealed themselves to be.

So, my take would be that freedom is best understood as "self-determination." We are free to the extent that we, as a unified individual (not one divided against himself), determine our actions. And we are free to the extent that we are authentic to our true nature, the nature God created for us. As Saint Augustine says: "You have made us for yourself O Lord & our heart is restless until it rests in you."

We are truly free when perfected and fulfilling our true purpose, the contemplation of God. We will choose this if we are given the grace to be able to do so.

But all freedom is through grace. We do not create ourselves. We are effects of other causes. Thus, man's freedom is always a gift, working with God. We cannot be free apart from God, just as we cannot "create ourselves."

With that in mind, it seems to me like we have varying degrees of freedom. A fallen sinner can be free in how they choose to sin. We can recognize our need for God; as Romans 1:20 says, the signs of the Creator are everywhere. But even if this is brought to our attention, it is still a grace, for we only exist by grace.

And here is where I sometimes find myself disagreeing with Reformed Theologians I've read. Sometimes, they seem to be saying that we cannot possibly learn about God through mundane means, through meeting a pious Christian, through studying the wonders of physics, etc. Instead, they seem to be saying that any turn towards God requires a sort of magical intervention, as opposed to a natural one. But it seems to me like the One who creates and sustains, and who is within all nature can use nature as way shower us in grace. Christ is the Logos through which all things were made, the Word that speaks being into existence. Thus, all things are a sign of Christ (Saint Bonaventure, "an effect is a sign of its cause.")

So, IMO, a man can come to strive after God in many ways, but the point is that this always involves grace. It couldn't be otherwise unless it was us who created ourselves and our world. And so our freedom to pursue God is always conditional on Grace. Nature itself is a gift of grace, freely shared to all God's creatures.

We can be "free" in some senses, but we are only truly free, free to be our authentic selves, to the extent that we are "in Christ," the extent to which "Christ lives in us." For only God has no limits and is fully self-determining. Only God is fully transcendent, a true infinite. So it is only through God, the way in which we are "in Christ," in the same way that Christ is "in the Father" (John 17), through the Spirit, that we achieve true freedom. Human freedom vis-á-vis nature is only the simulacra of freedom by comparison.

Great post!
A lot of thought went into it.

I do believe I agree with you, although it would seem somewhat contradictory at times.

I do want to add that, biblically, free will pertains only to our choice in obeying God....
we can choose to obey or not to obey. IOW, the choice is moral.

Something or other always determines our choice.
And it many times is our Christianity...
But not our God.

Because something determines our choice does not mean we believe in deterministic free will.
Deterministic free will means that God has already determined what our choice will be.
Do you not agree?

Libertarian free will means that, yes, something has helped us to choose,
but it will not be an outside force. And not by coercion.

Another problem with deterministic free will is that the reformed believe that God determines and decrees everything that happens, but somehow or other, we (the agent) is still responsible for our actions.
Rather a confusing concept coming from a God that does not cause confusion.

 

[brightfame52]

Come on BF, please do this.
Reconcile.

John 6:44 says the Father draws all those that come to Christ.

John 12:32 says that Jesus will draw ALL MEN to Himself.

We need to reconcile the two above verses or I'd say the NT cannot be trusted.

One states those saved,
One states ALL MEN.

Which is it?

The Drawing is the Power of God unto Salvation.

 

[brightfame52]

Where does John 6:44 state anything about ABILITY?

It only states that no one can go to Jesus except through the Father.
There must be some logical explanation for this.
Since John 3:16 states that GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD.....

It doesn't say the world of the saved or the world of the good
it says THE WORLD, that means all of His creation.

Man naturally doesnt have the Ability to believe in Christ, it takes the Power of God

 

[GodsGrace]

The Drawing is the Power of God unto Salvation.

Where is this stated?
Some verses please.

 

[GodsGrace]

Man naturally doesnt have the Ability to believe in Christ, it takes the Power of God

Then what is Romans 1:19.....all about?
Could Paul have been wrong?

And why can't you reconcile those two verses?

One liners...
Where's Fastfredy0 ?
I think he's the only reformed I can actually have a conversation with.

Others are either mad all the time
or answer with one sentence.

Calvin sure did know how to write a lot.
Can't you learn from him just a little?

 

[brightfame52]

Where is this stated?
Some verses please.

In the verse, Drawing is Power, Gods Power, its the greek word elkō:

1. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

 

[brightfame52]

Then what is Romans 1:19.....all about?
Could Paul have been wrong?

And why can't you reconcile those two verses?

One liners...
Where's Fastfredy0 ?
I think he's the only reformed I can actually have a conversation with.

Others are either mad all the time
or answer with one sentence.

Calvin sure did know how to write a lot.
Can't you learn from him just a little?

Again man doesnt have the ability to believe in Christ Jn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

The word can here denotes ability, its the word δύναμαι:

1. to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom
2. to be able to do something

 

[GodsGrace]

In the verse, Drawing is Power, Gods Power, its the greek word elkō:

1. metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

So?
I know what draw means.
Guess you just can't answer my question,,,
To a conflict Your theology has created.

 

[GodsGrace]

Again man doesnt have the ability to believe in Christ Jn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

The word can here denotes ability, its the word δύναμαι:

1. to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom
2. to be able to do something

First of all draw does not mean force.
Second,your own meaning states that one can use their own ability.

So it would seem, by your definition, that we have the ability to come to God under our own strength.

And, third, this does not even answer to the conflict.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually Icon, it hasn't ever been explained.

You just state how it is and then you're on your way.

Responses have been given. Explainations are lacking

The problem, as I see it, is that reformed theology creates many

conflicts within the NT.

It seems that way to you, but perhaps you do not see it at all.

This is one of them.
How do we get to God?
Through the Father .... John 6:44

Or through the Son ... John 12:32

You cannot mix these two passages as they are not the same in any way.Jn 12 does not mention the father or His activity at all. The drawing is not the same, at all. Where does Jn 12 say, they WILL COME. as Jn 6 does?

Do the Father and Son not agree with each other?

That agreement is known as the Covenant of redemption, which you have denied several times!

Are the both grabbing for power?

In your confused idea, perhaps, in the bible the Son tells us otherwise;
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Certainly there must be an answer.

What is the answer in simple terms and using only those two verses.

Have you an explanation?

I have supplied it once again, maybe this time you will get it.

 

[T.K. Brown]

I do believe I agree with you, although it would seem somewhat contradictory at times.

Something or other always determines our choice.
And it many times is our Christianity...
But not our God.

Freedom is a self-contradictory idea, at least if taken as "absolute freedom from all restraint." However, I think if we examine these contradictions we begin to see the numerous ways in which we are free, resulting in a sort of "typology" of freedom.

There is "negative freedom," the freedom from restraint. Then we can consider "positive freedom," the freedom "to do" something, e.g. the "freedom to study to be a doctor." Positive freedom comes with constraints on negative freedom. To be "free to become a good father," we have to wake up with our kids in the middle of the night, do things we don't necessarily want to do, etc. So we have a freedom to take on "duties" as part of our identity.

"Social freedom," then looks at the way people can empower or frustrate other's development of freedom. Society empowers us, e.g. things like universal education, but it also constrains us. So there are very many levels, each contradiction gives us new ways to express our freedom and new constraints.

Because something determines our choice does not mean we believe in deterministic free will.
Deterministic free will means that God has already determined what our choice will be.
Do you not agree?

It seems to me that it can't be one or the other. If I choose to do something, and I am not ruled over by instinct and desire, then I choose that thing because of the way the world is. Yet God makes the world. In this way, God seems to determine our actions.

However, I don't see this as making us unfree. We are free when we do what we want to do and don't do what we don't want to do. Further, we are free when this is the case and we are our authentic selves, and understand why we desire the things we do and want to have the desires that we have.

Now if we understand the world and ourselves, we can only do that because of the way we are, and the way the world is. This is only possible through God. But God determines our actions by making us and the world, not via some sort of "supernatural autopilot." God makes us capable of varying degrees of freedom, but we are still created, finite beings, and so in some ways determined. If I think about what causes me to do any one thing, I can imagine a long chain of causes going back to the start of the universe.

Libertarian free will means that, yes, something has helped us to choose,
but it will not be an outside force. And not by coercion.

There are a lot of versions of libertarian free will, but they tend to focus on the idea of us being "autonomous." It seems to me like we are only fully autonomous to the extent we are "in God," because only God is not an effect of other causes. We can be relatively more or less self-determining by nature, but only the divine union promised in the Gospels gets us to the perfected case. In this life, it seems we only get rare glimpses of that freedom. Now we see through a mirror darkly, then face to face, in the place where there is no need for a sun or moon, because God's light guides us.

Another problem with deterministic free will is that the reformed believe that God determines and decrees everything that happens, but somehow or other, we (the agent) is still responsible for our actions.

Yes, there is a tension between the idea of voluntarism — the idea that actions must be free to be blame worthy — and determinism. I don't think I've fully worked that out. I find myself returning to Christ's words about judgement on this. We are not called on the judge in this way. I certainly consider arguments for and against universalism, and I believe that in being called on to forgive all we are called on to pray that all repent.

There is one theory I've seen in philosophy that says that we are to blame for actions that occur "according to our true nature." Now if we are free to reject God, to reject God's transformation of our nature, then it does seem like we could be blamed for that nature.

I also think we might focus on judgment too much in an individualist sense in our era. The Bible has a strong sense of communal responsibility written into it, and I see a strong argument for covenantal, corporate election. If people do not seek God because of the circumstances of their lives, poverty, a sinful culture, etc. that seems like something we are called on to correct. But of course, it's a hard line to walk, trying to heal societies' ills but not slipping into joyless moralizing legalism. It also seems like part of giving people the freedom to choose good or bad entails a freedom to be punished.

 

[T.K. Brown]

Man naturally doesnt have the Ability to believe in Christ, it takes the Power of God

What is meant by naturally here? I think I agree with you, but I find this area to be tricky.

It seems that many come to believe in Christ in the Gospels and Acts through seeing signs and wonders. God works such signs, but they appear to be observed by completely mundane means. That is, the miraculous change is external to the person (e.g. the transformation of water into wine), yet it generates an internal change resulting in belief. But, crucially, this is still working "through God."

Yet this change is not always sufficient for true faith. For example, in Acts 8, we see Simon, who recognizes the power of the Holy Spirit, but who wished to buy such power for himself, for worldly uses. The external sign here has failed to result in a proper internal change.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in many of the Gospel stories to suggest that the signs and wonders necessarily have any "internal" component that motivates belief. Indeed, Jesus says it is better for us to not have been drawn in such a miraculous way, and I take this to mean that our faith will be stronger when it is not contingent in this way. "A wicked generation asks for a sign," Matthew 12:39.

It seems to me though that God must be involved in any of our journeys to belief. Man does not create himself, nor does he create the world through which he might come to know God.

What I would caution against though is a view where there are "the things of nature and man," on the one hand, and "the things of God," on the other. This seems to lead to a conception of God that isn't fully transcendent, but rather a God who sits beside the world, and is thus in some ways defined by that world (in the way all things are defined by what they are not). It seems to risk making nature more autonomous than it is, causing us to miss the signs of God unless they are "miraculous." It seems to me that when we recognize God's presence in creating and sustaining all things, we can understand language calling on us to draw towards God and repent, and the insight that this is always through grace, never something we can "boast in."

 

[Iconoclast]

Come on BF, please do this.
Reconcile.

John 6:44 says the Father draws all those that come to Christ.

No that is not what it says. It says all the Father gives to the Son, they shall come to Jesus. It does not say one word of the father drawing all who will come, because no one will come unless the father draws them jn6:44

 

[brightfame52]

T.K. Brown

What is meant by naturally here?

How we are when born by our natural parents, how we are out our mothers.

 

[T.K. Brown]

T.K. Brown



How we are when born by our natural parents, how we are out our mothers.

Makes sense to me. Barring some sort of miraculous intervention, I don't see how a babe could possibly understand God.

Our faith and journey to God requires a journey through the world God creates (and for God to create us). My point was simply that I don't like explanations that seems to require a sort of "magical autopilot," for people to come to God. It seems to me that God leads people to faith through diverse means. God frequently uses history to shape the faith of the covenant people for example.

Man cannot lead himself to God because man is not self-creating and because man lives in a fallen world, in sin, beset on all sides by instinct, desire, and circumstance. Reason can show him the signs of God (Romans 1) and we may see our need for God (Romans 7, Paul delights in God's law in his inner soul while fallen, but cannot follow God due to sin), but only by grace are we led to repentance and faith. Our own control over our lives is limited. We are only free over desire, instinct, and circumstance — free over over selves — to the extent we are in God, by grace.

But when Jesus says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37), I take it that repentance for Jerusalem was not metaphysically impossible. Rather, repentance was blocked by the will and nature of the inhabitants of the city.

My problem with Catholic theology is that it often seems to invoke a two tiered grace: a first, universal grace, and then a contingent grace "chosen through free will." My problem with Reformed Theology is when it seems to suppose a sort of divine autopilot is required for man to repent. These issues seem to stem from the coherence issues of libertarian free will itself.

It seems more to me like we are not free when our actions are "determined by nothing that comes before," but rather when we are unified as a rational while and choose what we truly think is good while also knowing the true good. Plato got at this when he proposed that only reason could "unify the soul." It could do this because reason let us know the true good, and men want "what is really good, not just what they currently believe to be good." But the true good is God, and God is creator of all, and thus the only way we learn of God. God is infinite, and so we can only experience God's true nature by God reaching out to us.

Calvin echos Plato: "The will must choose what the understanding judges to be good." IMO, Calvin's work is fairly compatible with compatibilism. What seems to cause confusion and disagreement is the means by which the Spirit overcomes man's sinful nature. Is this always through supernatural overpowering of the human will, the "auto pilot," complaint, or through Divine Providence, and thus fathomable means (which supports the usefulness of evangelism). I don't find Calvin himself always clear, but it seems more like the latter, in which case I don't think the Reformed view is actually as far from the Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox view as people might assume.

Individual versus corporate election still seems like a key difference though, but also less pressing. If God chooses individuals based on nothing we can know, and if we know the elect by their membership in the "Body of Christ," then corporate and individual election also start to look closer.