which the other cannot admit. It is the difficulty which has divided schools of earnest men and powerful thinkers, like the Augustinian and the Pelagian, the Cahinist and the Arniinian, which in various forms and degrees enters into and moulds men's whole conception of the religious life. Into its later phases we cannot here enter ; we must confine ourselves to stating the data of the problem as they are presented in Scripture.
In the OT the question in this special form scarcely occurs. The prophets regard Israel as having been chosen from among the peoples of the earth to be God's special heritage (Dt 7"-', Neh 9'- «, Is41»-» 44'- ') ; but the thought of a decree allecting the eternal destiny of individuals could not present itself to those who had only a dim conception of the future life, and who regarded religious olessings as coming to the individual only through his meuiber- ship of the elect nation. In the NT the difficulty is tor the most part not acutely felt, the two sides of the problem being in turn referred to « ithout any apparent sense of antagonism or inconipati- bUity. Thus Jesus recognizes the Father's action in revealing to babes what is hidden from the wi.se and prudent (Mt 11"- ^), declares that to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, while from others it is withheld (Mt 13"''"), says that many are called, but few chosen (Mt 22" ; cf. Jn 6" 12^"). On the other hand, He preaches the gospel of repentance (Mt 4"), and laments over .Jerusalem for neglecting or abusing her opportunities (Mt 23"). Nowhere is it made an excuse for the rejection of salvation that any one has not been included in the saving purpose of God.
It is in connexion with certain passages in the writings of St. Paul that the questions in regard to foreknowledge definitely arise. These are two. How far does foreknowledge imply predestination, decision of the fate of an individual anterior to his personal existence and therefore to his own moral choice ? and. What is the relation of foreknowledge to the ground of salvation ; is there anything fore- known which accounts for the saving choice falling upon one and passing by another ? In Ro 8^- *> we read : ' For whom he foreknew (oBs ir-poiyfu), he also foreordained (AV did predestinate) to be conformed to the image of his Son, . . . and whom he fore- ordained, them he also called ; and whom he called, them he also justified ; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.' Here the process of salva- tion is represented as a chain, as a succession of stages, of which the origin was a divine purpose based upon a divine foreknowledge. The word TrpoyLfuuKuj in its ordinary classical use means simply 'to know previously,' 'to have knowledge of beforehand,' and hence, since 'all demonstra- tion depends on previously existing knowledge' {^k TrpoyivdjaKOfjJvuf Taaa 5idaaKa\ia, Arist. Eth. A^ic> vi. 3), present knowledge leads to forecasting the future by tracing out the probable course of events ; cf. 2 P 3" ' Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware.' But, with men, the course of events can at best be foreknown only with a high degree of probability, it is never more than an inference founded on experience ; but God's foreknowledge must, we argue, be absolute, and involves the actual occurrence of that which is the object of it, — if it refers to time 7rp67i'u(ri! seems inevitably to involve TrpbS«n^. There is, however, a certain vagueness in the way in which irpoiyvu ia used in Ro 8-^, w hich is still more apparent in Ro U' 'God did not cast off his people which he fore- knew.' There is something wanting to fill up the conception. Cremer (Blbl.-Theol. Lex.) therefore suggests taking these passages in connexion with another class of passages, where the simple verb ia used, of which I Co 8' may be taken as an example •
FOREKNOWLEDGE
FOREPART
63
•If any man loveth God, the same is known of him ' {(yvaarai inr' aiiTOv). The union between God and man thus expressed is represented in Tpoiyi>u as anticipated and determined upon ' in tlie divine counsels before their manifestation in history.' Another shade of meaning which TrpoyivwaKciv in these texts appears to bear is that in tlie chain of events leading to salvation it denotes tlie se/f- deterinination of God to that work. With the irpo- op/fetr the first active step to its fulfilment lias been taken, but the foreknow ledge of God implies His own adoption of the plan. It thus, as Cremer remarks, ideally precedes even the iKkiyeadai of Eph 1^" Even as he chose (^leX^faro) us in him before the foundation of the world . . . having foreordained (irpoopiiras) UB unto adoption as sons,' 4K\4ye<rBai expressing ' a determination directed to the objects of the fellow- ship' into w hich God has resolved to enter with His people. nptryvuKTii tlius ' denotes the foreordained fellowship between God and the objects of His saving counsels, God's self-determination to enter into such fellowship preceding the realization thereof.' This definition establishes the place of foreknowledge in the order of the saving acts, but does not free it of the difficulty which its connexion with that order involves. In the self-determination of God to save, if this has an individual application, the whole problem is raised. It is evident that the apostle, anxious to establish the Christian's faith upon a sure foundation, overlooks for the moment the bearing of his explanation upon the question of moral choice. There is no reason to think that he would ignore the latter. His Epistles are fuU of appeals which recognize the moral nature and responsibilities of man. But the key to his attitude is probably to be found in that personal experience ■which he describes in Gal V, where, as Lightfoot remarks, he heaps up words to emphasize the point he is maintaining (' the sole agency of God as dis- tinct from his own efibrts '), ' the good pleasure of God, who separated me (set me apart, devoted me to a special purpose), even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace.' As he felt that he had been destined and was being prepared for his high office, even when he had been unconscious of it, and had been making in the opposite direction, so it was with humanity in general ; man was mov- ing towards the goal prepared for him, and God's purpose in spite of human recalcitrancy was being realized. But neither in the one case nor in the other did the leadings of Providence mean that the human will was being set aside.