Election

The biblical doctrine of ELECTION teaches that God has chosen a definite number of individuals to obtain salvation through faith in Christ. The exact identities of these people have been determined and are unchangeable. God has chosen these individuals without any consideration of their decisions, actions, and other conditions in them, but the basis of his choice was his will alone. He chose these people for salvation just because he wanted to choose them, and not because he foresaw anything that they will decide or perform.

 

Although I will more fully discuss the doctrine of election and respond to several objections in this section, I have already been explaining and defending the doctrine throughout this book, and all the arguments in support of absolute sovereignty and divine election that had appeared in the previous chapters also apply to this section. Remembering this will reduce the need for repetition.

 

Our first biblical passage comes from Romans 9. Although national Israel was supposedly God's chosen nation, most of its people had rejected Christ, and thus were kept from salvation. Does this mean that God's promise toward Israel had failed? Paul resolves this question in his letter to the Romans:

 

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." (Romans 9:6-9)

 

Although "Israel" was God's chosen nation, not everyone born a natural Israelite was a genuine Israelite. God never made the promise of salvation to national Israel, but only to the true descendants of Abraham, which constitutes the spiritual Israel. When his opponents claimed to be the descendants of Abraham, Jesus replied, "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things" (John 8:38-40). Although these people were Abraham's natural descendants, Jesus said that they were not his real children, but that their father was the devil (v. 44).

 

On the other hand, Paul writes, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). Those who have the faith of Abraham are the genuine children of Abraham (Romans 4:16). The promise of God was made to the spiritual descendants of Abraham, not to the natural descendants. Of course, the natural descendants of Abraham who believe in Christ are also his spiritual descendants, and thus are also heirs to the promise, but they are heirs only on account of their spiritual heritage and not their natural heritage.

 

Paul then cites the example of Jacob and Esau:

 

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls – she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Romans 9:10-13)

 

Although both Jacob and Esau were natural descendants of Isaac, God treated them differently by favoring the younger over the elder. This decision was not based on "anything good or bad" that they had done, but it was so that "God's purpose in election might stand." The choice was unconditional, meaning that it was "not by works but by him who calls." Jacob was favored because of the sovereign will of God, not because of something that he had done or would do; God's choice was completely independent of any condition in Jacob. As verse 15 says, "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'" Verse 16 expresses the necessary conclusion: "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

 

Paul says that God saved us "because of his own purpose and grace," not because of any condition that he saw in us, and he gave us this saving grace "before the beginning of time" (2 Timothy 1:9). "He predestined us," Paul writes, "in accordance with his pleasure and will" (Ephesians 1:5), not because of what he knew we would decide or perform. We are called "according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). To the Thessalonians, Paul writes, "He has chosen you" (1 Thessalonians 1:4), and not, "You have chosen him." He repeats this in his next letter to them and says, "God chose you to be saved" (2 Thessalonians 2:13), and not, "You chose yourselves to be saved." Election does not depend on man's decisions or actions, but on the mercy of God that is dispensed by his sovereign will alone.

 

Jesus says the following in John 6:37, 44:

 

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

 

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

Verse 37 says that everyone that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus, and verse 44 excludes everyone else from coming to Jesus. That is, everyone will be saved whom the Father gives to Jesus (v. 37), and no one will be saved whom the Father does not give to Jesus (v. 44). Since other biblical passages indicate that not everyone will be saved, it necessarily follows that the Father does not give every person to Jesus to be saved.

 

The word translated "draws" in verse 44 also means "drags," "pulls," or even "compels," so that it may read, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me drags him, pulls him, and compels him." For example, the word is translated as "dragged" and "dragging" in the NIV in the following verses:

 

When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities. (Acts 16:19)

 

The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. (Acts 21:30)

 

But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? (James 2:6)

 

Keeping in mind the total depravity of man (Romans 3:10-12, 23), that he is spiritually dead and cannot respond to or even request any assistance, Jesus is saying that no one can have faith in him unless chosen and compelled by the Father. Since faith in Christ is the only way to salvation (Acts 4:12), and since it is the Father alone and not the human individuals themselves who chooses those who would come to Christ, it follows that it is the Father who chooses who would receive salvation, and not the human individuals themselves.[1]

 

Jesus repeats this teaching in John 6:63-66:

 

"The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

No one can come to Jesus unless enabled by the Father; that is, no one has the ability to accept Jesus unless the Father gives it to him. This same passage shows that the Father does not give this ability to everyone, since many of them did not believe and "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."[2]

 

Jesus says to his disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16; also v. 19). He says, "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11:27). In Matthew 22:14, he says, "For many are invited, but few are chosen," and not, "For many are invited, but few accept the invitation." That is, many people may hear the preaching of the gospel, but only those "appointed for eternal life" (Acts 13:48) can and will believe. The elect are those "whom [God] has chosen" (Mark 13:20). Believers have been "chosen by grace" (Romans 11:5), and they are those who "by grace had believed" (Acts 18:27). Thus one does not choose himself for salvation by accepting Christ, but one receives salvation by accepting Christ because God has chosen him first. Faith is not the cause of election, but election is the cause of faith. We believe in Christ because God first chose us to be saved and then caused us to believe in Christ. We are saved because God chose us, not because we chose him.

 

The following lists a number of biblical passages relevant to the doctrine of election, including fuller quotations of those passages that are only partially cited above. Some of these passages are also relevant to the other topics that we will discuss later in this chapter:

 

Blessed are those you choose and bring near to live in your courts! We are filled with the good things of your house, of your holy temple. (Psalm 65:4)

 

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

 

For many are invited, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)

 

If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. (Mark 13:20)

 

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. (John 15:16)

 

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)

 

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

 

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

 

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

 

And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." (Romans 10:20)

 

And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." (Romans 11:4-8)

 

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. (Ephesians 1:4-6)

 

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)

 

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:10)

 

For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have. (Philippians 1:29-30)[3]

 

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed – not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence – continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (Philippians 2:12-13)[4]

 

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5)

 

For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:9)[5]

 

But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13)[6]

 

So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Timothy 1:8-10)

 

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9)[7]

 

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. (Revelation 17:8)[8]

 

They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings – and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers. (Revelation 17:14)

 

The Bible does not paint the picture of humanity as a group of people drowning in the sea of sin, and as many as would cooperate with Christ would be rescued. Instead, it paints a picture in which all human beings are dead in the water (Ephesians 2:1; Romans 3:10), and have sunken all the way to the bottom (Jeremiah 17:9). Since they are dead, they are unable to cooperate with any assistance, or even request it. In fact, they would choose not to be rescued if left by themselves (Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21). Against such a situation, the Father has chosen some to be saved by Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Ephesians 1:4-5) by dragging them out of the water (John 6:44, 65), purely by his own initiative (Romans 9:15). Having done so, he raises them from the dead into new life in Christ (Luke 15:24; Romans 6:13).

 

The biblical doctrine of election teaches that although all human beings deserve endless torment in hell because of their sins, God has chosen to show mercy toward some of them. God chose them before the creation of the universe and the fall of man, and he chose them without consideration of any condition in them, whether good or bad. Having chosen some for salvation, God sent Christ to die as full payment for their sins, so that God may credit the righteousness merited by Christ to them when they come to Christ. On the other hand, those who are not chosen for salvation are appointed for damnation, and they will receive the appropriate punishment for their sins, which is endless torment in hell.

 

We will now respond to several objections. This will also give us the opportunity to clarify and expand on certain aspects of this doctrine.

 

Many of those who refuse to accept the biblical view of election assert that God has indeed chosen some for salvation, but the basis for his choice was his FOREKNOWLEDGE. That is, God knew beforehand which individuals would freely accept Christ, and on this basis he has chosen them. This unbiblical view destroys the meaning of election, since it means that God does not choose people for salvation at all, but that he simply accepts the choices of those who would choose themselves for salvation.

 

When the word "foreknowledge" is used in the above manner, it is referring to God's cognitive awareness of future facts, such as the decisions and actions of individuals. Thus proponents of this view defines divine foreknowledge as prescience. Furthermore, it is implied that this knowledge is passive, so that it is not God who causes the future events that he knows, but he passively grasp what his creatures will cause to occur. In what follows, I will be showing that defining "foreknowledge" as passive prescience generates insuperable problems, and that the term means something different in the Bible.

 

First, we have already shown that every human being is in himself both unable and unwilling to come to Christ for salvation; a person can and will come to Christ only if the Father enables and compels him to do so (John 6:44, 65). We have also established that the Father does not enable and compel every human being to come to Christ. This means that a person comes to Christ only because the Father causes him to come to Christ.

 

Since this is true, then to say that election is based on God's prescience of man's future decisions is only to say that God knows whom he himself will cause to accept Christ, and such prescience would not be passive. If God elects a person because he knows that this person will accept Christ, but if this person will accept Christ only because God will cause him to do so, then to say that God knows this person will accept Christ is the same as saying that God knows that he will cause this person to accept Christ. God's election of this person is then still based on his own sovereign decision to choose this person for salvation, and not based on a passive knowledge that this person will accept Christ without God causing him to do so.

 

This is what the Bible teaches, but then it means that divine prescience is not a passive knowledge of what a person will decide or perform, but that it is a knowledge of what God will cause him to decide or perform. Divine prescience is a form of God's self-knowledge – a knowledge of his own plans, and a knowledge of what he will actualize in the future. Therefore, to say that election is based on prescience does not challenge our position at all, since God's knowledge of the future is never passive, but it is he himself who causes everything that he knows will happen in the future (Isaiah 46:10).

 

Second, the Bible states that divine election is not based on man's decisions or actions, that God does not choose someone for salvation because of what this person will decide or perform.

 

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy….So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. (Romans 9:15-16, 18; NRSV)

 

Divine election is not based on a passive prescience, and divine prescience is not passive in the first place. God chooses a person because he wants to choose that person, and he knows who will believe the gospel because he knows whom he will cause to believe the gospel.

 

Third, defining God's foreknowledge as passive prescience in fact fails to make sense of the biblical passages saying that divine election is based on foreknowledge:

 

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

 

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. (1 Peter 1:1-2)

 

Our opponents would interpret these two passages as saying that divine election is based on foreknowledge in the sense of passive prescience; that is, God has chosen those whom he passively knew would accept Christ.

 

Now, the structure of Romans 8:29-30 necessarily implies that all the individuals included in one phase of the order of salvation would also enter into all the subsequent phases, and that all the individuals in any phase of the order of salvation have also been included in all the previous phases. Thus all those foreknown are also predestined; all those predestined are also called; all those called are also justified; and all those justified are also glorified.

 

Michael Magill translates the passage as follows:

 

Because whom He foreknew, [these] He also predestined…

And whom He predestined, these He also called

And whom He called, these He also declared-righteous

And whom He declared righteous, these He also glorified[9]

 

Therefore, whatever foreknowledge means, everyone who is foreknown by God is also justified by God. However, the passage does not say that it is the people's faith or choices that are foreknown by God, but that it is the people that are foreknown. Our opponents assume that foreknowledge means prescience in this passage. But since it is the people that are foreknown, since God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive, and since everyone foreknown is also justified, then it necessarily follows that if one defines foreknowledge as prescience in this passage, one must also understand it to teach universal salvation.

 

That is, if foreknowledge here refers to God's knowledge of future facts (especially a passive prescience), if foreknowledge is applied to people in this passage and not to their faith or choices, if God knows about all human beings, and if all who are foreknown are justified, then all human beings are justified. But Scripture consistently teaches that not everyone is saved or justified; therefore, foreknowledge as related to divine election, and when used in this passage in particular, cannot mean prescience (especially a passive prescience). Foreknowledge must mean something else.

 

We will establish that, in a salvific context, the "knowledge" of God refers to his sovereign choice and purposive affection for persons and not to his passive awareness of facts. For example, Matthew 7:23 says, "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" Since Jesus as God is omniscient, "I never knew you" cannot mean that he has never been aware of these people's existence, thoughts, and actions. In fact, he knows that they are "evildoers." Therefore, the denial of "knowledge" here is a denial of a salvific relationship, and not a passive awareness of facts. Accordingly, "foreknowledge" would refer to a salvific relationship established in the mind of God before the existence of the chosen individuals; that is, foreknowledge means foreordination.

 

Many biblical passages employ the concept of foreknowledge in this sense. For example, God says to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Of course God would know a person whom he himself intends to create; that is, God knows his own plans. The main sense here is that before Jeremiah was conceived, God has chosen him – not that God was pleased with what he passively knew about Jeremiah, but that God has designed and made him.

 

God's foreknowledge as election and foreordination is made more evident by the parallelism of the lines in this verse. When one line or expression parallels another line or expression in a verse, one part expands on or clarifies the meaning of the other part. For example, "For he founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters" (Psalm 24:2) does not necessarily mean that in addition to having "founded it upon the seas," he also "established it upon the waters." Rather, "established it upon the waters" carries a similar meaning as "founded it upon the seas," and helps to clarify its meaning. Another example comes from the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus says, "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one" (Matthew 6:13). It is not that we are to ask God to "deliver us from the evil one" in addition to "lead us not into temptation," but "deliver us from the evil one" is what is meant by "lead us not into temptation."

 

With this in mind, the parallelism in God's call to Jeremiah helps to clarify the meaning of "I knew you." Again, Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." Or, we may translate the verse as follows:

 

I knew you before I formed you in the womb,

I consecrated you before you were born;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

 

The words "I knew you" correspond to "I consecrated you" and "I appointed you," and the three expressions carry similar meanings. For God to know Jeremiah in the sense intended here is to consecrate and appoint him for God's own purpose.

 

S. M. Baugh also uses this passage to illustrate the meaning of divine foreknowledge, and writes as follows:

 

Another remarkable example of divine foreknowledge is expressed in Jeremiah 1:5, where God says to Jeremiah:

 

I knew you before I formed you in the womb,

I consecrated you before you emerged from the womb;

I have given you as a prophet to the nations.

 

The first two lines are closely parallel in the number of syllables and word order…

 

But how can God have known Jeremiah before he was even conceived? Because he personally fashioned his prophet, just as he had fashioned Adam from the dust (Gen. 2:7), and just as he fashions all people (Ps. 139:13-16; Isa. 44:24). God foreknew not only the possibility of Jeremiah's existence – he knows all possibilities indeed – but God foreknew Jeremiah by name before he was conceived, because he knew how he would shape and mold his existence.[10]

 

Huey writes, "Here it involves a choosing relationship (Gen 18:19; Deut 34:10). The Lord was thinking about Jeremiah before he was born. At that time God had already designated Jeremiah to be a prophet."[11]

 

The point is that God's foreknowledge refers to a personal relationship originated by his sovereign decision, and not by a passive awareness of future persons and events. Since nothing occurs apart from his active decree (Matthew 10:29), his knowledge of the future is rooted in his own sovereign will. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says, "God's foreknowledge stands related to his will and power. What he knows, he does not know merely as information. He is no mere spectator. What he foreknows he ordains. He wills it."[12]

 

In the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, J. M. Gundry-Volf writes:

 

Rather than referring to speculative or neutral knowledge (i.e., knowledge of who will believe), the Pauline notion of divine foreknowledge is understood by many interpreters as a knowing in the Semitic sense of acknowledging, inclining toward someone, knowledge which expresses a movement of the will reaching out to personal relationship with someone. This kind of knowing is illustrated by the meaning of the Hebrew yada, "to know," in texts such as Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:5; and Jeremiah 1:5….In Paul's use of proginosko the aspect of pretemporality is added to the Hebrew sense of "know" as "have regard for" or "set favor on." The result is a verb which refers to God's eternal loving election.[13]

 

The article on foreknowledge in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia helps to reinforce several points that we have discussed:

 

Arminian theology, in all its variant forms, contends that God's foreknowledge is simply a prescient knowledge, a knowing in advance whether a given person will believe in Christ or reject him. God's election, therefore, is said to be simply God's choice unto salvation of those whom He knows in advance will choose to believe in Christ. God foresees the contingent free action of faith and, foreseeing who will believe in Christ, elects those because they do. But this is destructive of the biblical view of election. In biblical thought election means that God elects people, not that people elect God. In Scripture it is God who in Christ decides for us – not we who, by making a decision for Christ, decide for God.

 

Reformation theology has contended that the divine foreknowledge contains the ingredient of divine determination. The Reformers claimed that God indeed foreknows who will believe, because believing in Christ is not a human achievement, but a divine gift imparted to men by God's grace and Spirit. Thus God's foreknowledge is not merely prescience, but a knowledge that itself determines the event. That is, in Reformation thought what God foreknows He foreordains….

 

That God's foreknowledge contains the idea of divine determination does not rest merely on a few biblical texts but reflects a truth about God that comes to expression in a variety of biblical concepts descriptive of the unique and mysterious character of God's actions. God's foreknowledge is itself a form of determination which accounts for the reality of that which is divinely foreknown….[14]

 

Thus it is a mistake to define foreknowledge as passive prescience because the Bible means something else by the term.

 

Now that we have clarified the meaning of foreknowledge, we must apply the correct definition to the passage in dispute, which reads as follows:

 

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

 

Concerning this passage, Baugh writes:

 

The classic Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29, that God's foreknowledge of faith is in view, is clearly reading one's theology into the text. Paul does not say: "whose faith he foreknew," but "whom he foreknew." He foreknew us….But in Romans 8:29, predestination is not dependent on faith; rather, God predestines us on the basis of his gracious commitment to us before the world was….

 

Perhaps another rendering better expresses the concept behind Romans 8:29: "Those to whom he was previously devoted…." This again, is not to say that God's foreknowledge is devoid of intellectual cognition; to have a personal relation with someone, such as a marriage relation, includes knowledge about that person….God has foreknown us because he fashioned each of us personally and intimately according to his plan….

 

That Paul refers to this concept of a committed relationship with the phrase whom he foreknew in Romans 8:29 is confirmed by the context….

 

Further confirmation of "foreknowledge" in Romans 8:29 as referring to a previous commitment is found in a nearby passage, Romans 11:1-2, where proginosko can have only this meaning: "God has not rejected his people, has he? No way! For I also am an Israelite….God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." As in Romans 8:29, the objects of foreknowledge are people themselves rather than historical events or a particular person's faith….

 

The Arminian notion of "foreseen faith" is impossible as an interpretation of God's foreknowledge in Romans 11:1-2, and, consequently, in the earlier passage, Romans 8:29, as well. The latter explains that God initiated a committed relationship from eternity with certain individuals whom he predestined for grace.[15]

 

F. F. Bruce agrees, saying that, "God's foreknowledge here connotes that electing grace which is frequently implied by the verb 'to know' in the Old Testament. When God takes knowledge of people in this special way, he sets his choice on them."[16]

 

Douglas Moo also argues that foreknowledge means foreordination when used in Romans 8:29:

 

In [Arminianism] the human response of faith is made the object of God's "foreknowledge"; and this foreknowledge, in turn, is the basis for predestination: for "whom he foreknew, he predestined." But I consider it unlikely that this is the correct interpretation. (1) The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage….the three others besides the occurrence in this text, all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before" – in the sense of intellectual knowledge, or cognition – but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine, before" (Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2). (2) That the verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of "know" is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object. Paul does not say that God knew anything about us but that he knew us, and this is reminiscent of the OT sense of "know." (3) Moreover, it is only some individuals…who are the objects of this activity; and this shows that an action applicable only to Christians must be denoted by the verb. If, then, the word means "know intimately," "have regard for," this must be a knowledge or love that is unique to believers and that leads to their being predestined. This being the case, the difference between "know or love beforehand" and "choose beforehand" virtually ceases to exist.[17]

 

Although foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 cannot mean passive prescience, John Murray contends that even if it does, it still does not challenge the doctrine of election:

 

For it is certainly true that God foresees faith; he foresees all that comes to pass. The question would then simply be: whence proceeds this faith which God foresees? And the only biblical answer is that the faith which God foresees is the faith he himself creates….The interest, therefore, is simply one of interpretation as it should be applied to this passage….On exegetical grounds we shall have to reject the view that "foreknew" refers to the foresight of faith….[18]

 

As the Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says, "In Romans 8:29 and 11:2, the apostle Paul's use of the word foreknew means 'to choose' or 'to set special affection on.' The electing love of God, not foresight of human action, is the basis of His predestination and salvation."[19]

 

Some people who disagree with this understanding of foreknowledge argue that, if foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 means foreordination, then it would render redundant the word "predestined," since the verse says, "For those God foreknew he also predestined." It seems that the two words are referring to separate concepts in the verse; therefore, they argue that we ought to adopt passive prescience as the definition of foreknowledge.

 

However, they have failed to read the verse carefully. If the word foreknew means foreordained in this verse, it would be a reference to God's work of election, that is, his choice of the specific individuals whom he would save. Then, the verse says that these whom God has elected, he has also predestined, not to repeat the concept of election, but that he has set forth a "destination" or purpose in advance for the elect – namely, God's will is for them "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son." Foreknowledge in this verse refers to God's election of individuals to salvation, and predestination reveals the specific purpose or end that God has designed for his elect.

 

In other words, God has not only chosen the elect to receive salvation from sin, but also to become like his Son, Jesus Christ. The verse is saying that the same people whom God has elected are also the people whom God has given the "destination" or purpose to become like Christ, and that he has made such a decision in advance, and thus he "predestined" them.

 

Accordingly, Gundry-Volf writes:

 

Paul distinguishes between divine foreknowledge and divine predestination in Romans 8:29: "those whom he foreknew, he also predestined." While foreknowledge denotes the exercise of God's will to establish a special relationship with those whom God graciously elect before all time, predestination expresses God's appointing of them to a specific goal before all time…In Romans 8:29 this goal is conformity with the image of the Son, a reference to the final salvation of the elect. Foreknowledge as divine choice is thus the basis of predestination to glorification with Christ. Foreknowledge does not have to be understood as foresight of faith in order to be distinguished from predestination.[20]

 

Based on the above observations and arguments, it is necessary to understand foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 as foreordination. Kenneth Wuest recognizes this, and translates verses 29 and 30 as follows:

 

Because, those whom He foreordained He also marked out beforehand as those who were to be conformed to the derived image of His Son, with the result that He is firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, those whom He thus marked out beforehand, these He also summoned. And those whom He summoned, these He also justified. Moreover, those whom He justified, these He also glorified.[21]

 

The word "foreordained" here corresponds to foreknowledge, and the phrase "marked out beforehand" corresponds to predestination. Similarly, these verses in the GNT are translated as follows:

 

Those whom God had already chosen he also set apart to become like his Son, so that the Son would be the first among many believers. And so those whom God set apart, he called; and those he called, he put right with himself, and he shared his glory with them.

 

We may further confirm this understanding of foreknowledge by examining Acts 2:23 and 4:28. The first verse says, "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." This does not mean that God was passively aware of what men would do to Jesus, but it means that his suffering was in fact God's "set purpose," which is also the meaning of foreknowledge here. Acts 4:28 also refers to the death of Christ, but it says, "They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." But we just saw that in 2:23 Peter credits the incident to God's "set purpose" and "foreknowledge." It is evident that these terms have equivalent meanings, so that God's foreknowledge refers to his "set purpose" or what he has "decided beforehand." In fact, the words of 4:28 gives us a good definition for God's foreknowledge – it is "what [his] power and will had decided beforehand should happen." As Martin Luther writes, "It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal, and infallible will."[22]

 

Without further argument, we may conclude that foreknowledge in 1 Peter 1:2 also cannot refer to a passive prescience. The verse says that we are, "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Of course we are – the verse means that Christians have been chosen and foreordained for salvation by the sovereign will of God.

 

Many people make the observation that biblical election contradicts the "free will" of man, and since they insist that man has free will, they accordingly reject the doctrines of absolute sovereignty and divine election as presented in this book. Against this objection, we may simply answer that human beings do not have free will at all. Although many Christians assume that human beings possess free will, this is a pagan notion that can find no support from the Bible.[23]

 

R. K. McGregor Wright defines "free will" as follows: "By the term free will I mean the belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. This is commonly called 'the power of contrary choice' or 'the liberty of indifference….' Ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is autonomous from outside determination."[24] Free will assumes "the absence of any controlling power, even God and his grace, and therefore the equal ability in any situation to choose either of two incompatible courses of action."[25] Assuming such a definition, I contend that man does not have free will.

 

In the first place, it is impossible for finite beings to have free will. If we think of the exercise of the will as the movement of the mind toward a certain direction,[26] the question arises as to what moves the mind, and why it moves toward where it moves. Even if we assume that the mind can move itself, we are still left with the question of why it moves itself toward a given direction, that is, why it chooses one option instead of another. If one traces the movement and direction of the mind to factors external to the mind itself – factors that impress themselves upon the consciousness from the outside, and thus influencing or determining the decision – then how is this movement of the mind free? On the other hand, if one traces the cause to the person's innate propensities, then this movement of the mind is likewise not free, since such in-built inclinations have not been freely chosen (that is, without external influences) by the person in the first place, yet they determine the decisions that he makes. If a person's decisions are determined by a mixture of innate propensities and external influences, it remains that he does not have free will.

 

If the mind makes decisions based on factors, causes, and influences not chosen by the mind itself, then these decisions are not free. Although we may affirm that man has a will, so that the mind can indeed move toward different options, the ability and reason for such movement is never determined by the mind itself, but by something other than the mind itself. Since this is true for all finite beings, it follows that only God possesses free will. As Luther writes against the humanist Erasmus:

 

It is a settled truth, then…that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by "free-will"; for the power of "free-will" is nil…It follows, therefore, that "free-will" is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) "whatever he wills in heaven and earth" (Psalm 135:6). If "free-will" is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be – and no blasphemy could exceed that![27]

 

No one under the dominion of sin can simply "decide" to be free from it without God's intervention, nor would the person wish to be free from sin before such an intervention occurs. Salvation is wholly the work of God, so that no one may boast of his works or even his "good sense" in that he has "chosen" Christ (John 15:16; Ephesians 2:8). Even after one has become a Christian, "it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13).

 

Scripture teaches that God is the one who determines the thoughts and decisions of man. He exercises immediate control over the mind of man, and determines all the innate propensities and external factors relevant to him. It is God who forms a person in the womb, who determines his inward dispositions, and who arranges his outward circumstances by divine providence. It is true that the doctrine of election contradicts the free will of man,[28] but free will is a human invention – a sinful assumption or aspiration – and not a scriptural concept. Therefore, the "free will" objection against divine election fails because free will does not exist.

 

Many people think that there is a contradiction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. They assume that human responsibility presupposes human autonomy, or free will. But if God has absolute and pervasive control over all human decisions and actions, then man is not free, and therefore divine sovereignty and human responsibility appear to be in conflict.

 

Now, the first definition for "responsible" in Webster's New World College Dictionary is, "expected or obliged to account (for something, to someone); answerable; accountable."[29] Regardless of whether man is free or not, man is certainly "expected or obliged to account" for his actions to God. The Bible says, "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:14). God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked; therefore, man is responsible.

 

Man is responsible precisely because God is sovereign, since to be responsible means nothing more than being held accountable to one's actions, that one will be rewarded or punished according to a given standard of right and wrong. Moral responsibility has everything to do with whether God has decided to judge man and whether he has the power and authority to enforce such a decision, but it does not depend on any "free will" in man. Man is responsible because God will reward obedience and punish rebellion, but this does not at all imply that man is free to obey or rebel.

 

Romans 8:7 says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." Man is responsible for his sins not because he is free or able not to sin; this verse says that he is not. But man is responsible because God has decided to judge him for his sins. Therefore, human responsibility does not presuppose human autonomy or free will, but it presupposes the absolute sovereignty of God. Divine sovereignty contradicts human autonomy, but not human responsibility.[30]

 

For many people, the issue now becomes one of justice. They insist that it would be unjust for God to condemn those sinners who were never free to decide or perform otherwise, and who were created for and predestined to damnation by God in the first place. Since this objection will also be relevant when we discuss the doctrine of reprobation, we will deal with it there.

 

Some people find it impossible to deny that the Bible indeed teaches divine election, and that election is for salvation; nevertheless, they are not prepared to affirm that God chooses specific individuals. They propose that God indeed elects some for salvation, but that election is corporate in nature. They claim that Ephesians 1:4 supports this position: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world." Since the verse says that God's election is in Christ, the objection against the election of individuals for salvation is that the object of election is Christ, and whoever comes into Christ becomes one of the elect.

 

However, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:27-30, "But God chose…so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." The apostle says that it is God who made the choice in election so that "no one may boast before him." Against those who say that only Christ is the object of election, and that whoever comes into him becomes God's elect, the passage says, "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus." God chooses who becomes "in Christ," and therefore divine election is in fact a selection of individuals.

 

In addition, corporate election fails to explain why anyone would want to come into Christ without having been individually chosen and then "dragged" to Christ by God.[31] According to what we have already established about the depravity of man and his bondage to sin, if Christ were to be the sole object of election, no one would enter into him, and no one would be saved. For a given person to be saved, God must first choose and then directly and powerfully act on his mind. Therefore, we conclude that divine election consists of God's choice of individuals for salvation, and not the corporate church or Christ.

 

In any case, it is possible to refute corporate election by directly dealing with the passage in question. Ephesians 1:4-6 says:

 

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will – to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

 

Verse 4 says that he chose us "in him," with the object of God's selection as "us" and not Christ. That is, it says that he "chose us," and not that he "chose him." Verse 5 excludes corporate election when it says, "he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ." God predestined us – not Christ, but the individuals – to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ. Likewise, verse 6 says, "he has freely given us in the One he loves." God gives salvation to us in Christ; he does not give salvation to Christ and then wait for us to come into Christ by some sort of self-election.

 

Christ is indeed the elect or chosen one to achieve salvation, but he is not the elect when it comes to who would receive salvation. Election in the context of salvation refers to the individuals that God has chosen to save through Jesus Christ. Christ is the one chosen to save, and the elect are the ones chosen to be saved. The "in him" in verse 4 corresponds to the "through Christ Jesus" in verse 5 and the "in the One he loves" in verse 6, with all three expressions referring to him as the means of salvation, and not the object of salvation.

 

Another objection against the biblical doctrine of divine election is that it destroys the reason or motive for evangelism. It appears to some people that if God has predetermined the identities of those who would be saved, this would render the work of evangelism meaningless.

 

On the surface, this seems to be an objection arising from a pious and noble concern for evangelism, but the assumption is that the only sufficient reason or motive for obeying the command of God to evangelize is that to disobey it will result in the damnation of many.

 

In other words, one who makes this objection against divine election is implying that he finds it meaningful to obey God in preaching the gospel only if his disobedience will cause his potential audience to suffer endless torment in hell. Although God has commanded him to preach the gospel, he has no incentive to do so unless he knows that other people will be forever condemned for his disobedience. Unless his role in the salvation or damnation of others is determinative, he finds it meaningless to obey the command of God. This objection serves to expose the moral depravity of the one who raises it, but it poses no challenge to the doctrine of election.

 

Faithful Christians can affirm that God's command to preach the gospel is more than enough to give meaning and purpose to evangelism. His commands are inherently meaningful, and demand obedience. In addition, we should understand that God controls both the means and the ends. He does not only determine what he wants to happen but also how he wants it to happen, and he has decided that believers should be the means by which other individuals whom he has chosen would be brought to faith in Christ. We should be grateful that God would use our preaching as the means by which he summons those he has chosen for salvation (2 Timothy 2:10).

 

It is true that God does not need us: "And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else" (Acts 17:25). His commands toward us never reflect his need, since he has none, but they reflect his preceptive will for our lives. We preach so that those who are "appointed for eternal life" (Acts 13:48) will come to Christ, and not because they will be lost without us. Nevertheless, it means more to some people to be needed than to obey the commands of God.

 

The other side of the doctrine of election is the doctrine of REPROBATION. Just as God has actively chosen to save some, he has actively chosen to condemn the rest of humanity. Just as he has determined which specific individuals would be saved, he has determined which specific individuals would be damned:

 

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:21-22)

 

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone," and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for. (1 Peter 2:7-8)

 

Many people attempt to dilute this doctrine by saying that God merely "passes over" the reprobates, but the Bible teaches that he actively hardens their hearts against himself and the gospel:

 

But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go. (Exodus 10:20)

 

For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses. (Joshua 11:20)

 

Why, O LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes that are your inheritance. (Isaiah 63:17)

 

He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn – and I would heal them. (John 12:40)

 

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. (Romans 9:18)

 

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." (Romans 11:7-8)

 

We have already established that free will does not exist in finite beings, and that human responsibility has no direct relationship to free will. It is God who governs all things, including the thoughts and actions of human beings, but human beings are still responsible for their thoughts and actions precisely because God holds him accountable for their thoughts and actions by his sovereign power.

 

Responsibility presupposes accountability, but accountability does not presuppose ability or freedom. Accountability merely presupposes one who demands accountability. Since God demands accountability – since he will reward righteousness and punish wickedness – man is accountable. Since God is sovereign, he decides what he wants to decide, and whether human beings have free will or not never has to enter the discussion at all.

 

Right away the question becomes one of justice. Many people may insist that it would be unjust for God to punish those whom he has predestined to damnation, who could never decide or perform otherwise.

 

Paul anticipates such an objection in Romans 9:19, and writes, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" He replies, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). God rules by absolute authority; no one can halt his plans, and no one has the right to question him. This is true because God is the creator of all that exists, and he has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21).

 

The apostle continues to say, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" (v. 22-24). This is still part of the answer to the question in verse 19: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Paul is saying that since God is sovereign, he can do whatever he wishes, including creating some vessels destined for glory, and some destined for damnation. The elect rejoices in this doctrine; the reprobate detests it. Either way, there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Peter says regarding those who reject Christ: "They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for" (1 Peter 2:8).

 

It is only because of impiety and irrationality that the issue of justice is even brought up against the doctrine of reprobation. The objection in its various forms amounts to the following:

 

1.      The Bible teaches that God is just.

2.      The doctrine of reprobation is unjust.

3.      Therefore, the Bible does not teach the doctrine of reprobation.

 

Premise (2) has been assumed without warrant. By what standard is one to judge whether the doctrine of reprobation is just or unjust? If the Bible speaks of it, then it is not up to us to decide the issue. On the other hand, the Christian reasons as follows:

 

1.      The Bible teaches that God is just.

2.      The Bible affirms the doctrine of reprobation.

3.      Therefore, the doctrine of reprobation is just.

 

The pivotal point is whether the Bible affirms the doctrine; whether it is just or unjust should not be assumed beforehand. Calvin notes:

 

For God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Let men's rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist.[32]

 

To dictate how God's mercy is to be dispensed is evidence proving the utter sinfulness and foolish audacity of man, and not an argument against the doctrines of election and reprobation.

 

To better understand election and reprobation, we must fully affirm what the Bible says concerning human depravity. For example, Romans 3:10-12, 23 says, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one….for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Every human being is a sinner, and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23); therefore, justice demands that every person be damned.

 

The doctrines of election and reprobation do not say that the elect receive mercy while the non-elect receive injustice. Since all human beings deserve damnation, the biblical doctrines of election and reprobation teach that those whom God has chosen for salvation would receive mercy, and what those whom he has chosen for damnation would receive is precisely justice – and that is why they would be damned. God has no obligation to show mercy to anyone at all, and that he shows mercy to some does not mean that he must show mercy to all.

 

Once it is claimed that God is somehow required to be merciful to someone, we are no longer speaking of mercy, but justice. It is not mercy that grants what is required, but justice. Receiving justice in this case results in eternal damnation and not salvation. What is "fair" is for everyone to be damned, since our sins have rendered this the just punishment. We should be thankful that God is merciful to save anyone at all, instead of accusing him with the blasphemous charge of being unjust or not merciful enough. As Benjamin B. Warfield writes:

 

Shall we not fix it once for all in our minds that salvation is the right of no man; that a "chance" to save himself is no "chance" of salvation for any; and that, if any of the sinful race of man is saved, it must be by a miracle of almighty grace, on which he has no claim, and, contemplating which as a fact, he can only be filled with wondering adoration of the marvels of the inexplicable love of God? To demand that all criminals shall be given a "chance" of escaping their penalties, and that all shall be given an "equal chance," is simply to mock at the very idea of justice, and no less, at the very idea of love.[33]

 

Although we have no right to demand an explanation, Paul does tell us why God's work of reprobation is both good and necessary:

 

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:22-24)

 

God has "prepared for destruction" certain individuals, so that he may "show his wrath and make his power known." Paul explains that, "he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory." In other words, the reprobation of the non-elect is for the express purpose of making God's glory known to his elect.

 

Since the elect have been "saved from God's wrath" (Romans 5:9) by Christ, they will never have the opportunity to experience the wrathful aspect of his nature. But the wrath of God remains an essential divine attribute. As explained earlier, God's love toward his elect is characterized by his willingness to reveal himself to them (John 14:21-23, 15:15, 16:14; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12), and therefore he has prepared the reprobate for such a purpose.

 

We have already established that God has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation just as a potter has the right to do whatever he wishes with his lump of clay; therefore, one cannot accuse God of being cruel or unjust for creating and predestining the reprobates for the above purpose. God is the sole moral authority, and the Bible calls him just and good; therefore, whatever he says and does is just and good by definition. It follows that his work of reprobation is thus just and good by definition, and no one can accuse God of unrighteousness – there is no standard of right and wrong outside of God by which to accuse God of wrongdoing. God is his own moral standard, and since he calls himself righteous, he must therefore be righteous.

 

Instead of causing us to question God's justice, the doctrine of reprobation should further enlighten us concerning God's great love for his elect. Since God governs even the reprobates to serve his own ends (Proverbs 16:4), and he "causes all things to work together" (Romans 8:28; NASB) for the good of the elect, it follows that he may manipulate the lives of the reprobates in ways that promote the good of his own chosen ones. And Scripture teaches that this is what he has been doing. Thus even the damnation of sinners is for the benefit and edification of Christians, for such is the love of God toward his chosen ones.