8. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Useful

The doctrine of election is not an abstract truth with no practical significance for the Christian, rather it is vitally edifying when handled aright. As Calvin describes it “though the discussion of predestination is regarded as a perilous sea, yet in sailing over it the navigation is calm and safe, nay pleasant, provided we do not voluntarily court danger. .those who investigate it rightly, and in the order in which it is exhibited in the word, reap from it rich fruits of consolation”. When Puritans sought to make practical application of doctrine they spoke of its uses. The Biblical doctrine of Election is preeminently full of practical use and application.

Preaching
Some say that election should not be preached because it is so mysterious or difficult but all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and Scripture is full of expressions and implications of this doctrine. Although it may be unpopular or challenging it must still be preached. If preaching election can fan doubts and fears for genuine believers, preaching regeneration easily could do the same for those who have fears and doubts whether or not they have truly been born again.

Preaching exalts God in Christ and abases man and this is the true result of unconditional election by the effectual working of the Holy Spirit. Calvin rightly says: “Those who preclude access, and would not have any one to obtain a taste of this doctrine, are equally unjust to God and men, there being no other means of humbling us as we ought, or making us feel how much we are bound to him.”

In preaching, however, election is to be handled with special prudence, humility and care so that it is only emphasised in proportion to the degree that it is stressed in Scripture. It would be unwise to press it prominently upon anxious seekers, sceptics, or those who have not grasped the gospel and other basic truths first. It must be taught in relation to effectual calling and obedience to the gospel with proportionate emphasis upon man’s responsibility.

Assurance and comfort
Election is the basis of our eternal hope: that those whom he predestined, them he also called. We have no hope in ourselves as guilty, lost and ruined. But we have hope in the only Redeemer of God's elect who is Himself the elect one appointed to lay down his life for the people given to him in the eternal counsels. The golden chain joining election and glorification assures us that Nothing will thwart God's ultimate purpose. We doubt ourselves but we cannot doubt his promises.

The Canons of Dordt wisely counsel that the elect gain assurance of their election “not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.” The Christian receives comfort and assurance by following these fruits of election to their source. The Spirit thus assures us of our adoption and therefore of our election: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Rom. 8:16).

In their useful summary of the orthodox doctrine of election the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England affirm winsomely the same teaching as Dordt that “the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God”.

Election when rightly considered in this way will truly humble us to say with David, “Who am I, O Lord GOD? and what is my house that thou hast brought me hitherto? ... And is this the manner of men? And what can David say more unto thee? For thou, Lord GOD knowest thy servant?” The sense of that debt flows out in loving obedience to his revealed will. The elect are called with an holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9) unto holiness and their manner of life shows this. Election does not produce carelessness but careful obedience and acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness. The Canons of Dordt indicate this: “The sense and certainty of this election afford to the children of God additional matter for daily humiliation before Him, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him who first manifested so great love towards them. The consideration of this doctrine of election is so far from encouraging remissness in the observance of the divine commands or from sinking men in carnal security, that these, in the just judgment of God, are the usual effects of rash presumption or of idle and wanton trifling with the grace of election, in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.”

Praise and devotion
Election should instill within us a spirit of praise, love and devotion. It is all to the “praise of the glory of his grace” and "we love him because he first loved us". No credit is due to the creature but all the glory belongs and is due to God alone. "We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation" (2 Thess. 2:13). What a high privilege election is. They are a people chosen to show forth his praises. They are blessed indeed "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts" (Ps. 65:4). "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him" (Eph. 1:3, 4). Does the Lord say: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love." And will not our love rise in response? This spirit of praise is well expressed in the following words of the Dutch theologian Herman Witsius:

Didst thou, O Lord, from eternity, entertain thoughts of glorifying me, a miserable wretch, who am less than nothing; and shall I not again carry thee for ever in my eyes, and always in my bosom? shall I not delight in meditating on thee? shall I not cry out, how precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! Psalm 139.17. Shall I not, with the most sincere repentance, bewail that time, in which so many hours, days, weeks, months, and years, have passed over my head, without one single holy and pleasing thought of thee? Didst thou, out of mere love, choose me to salvation? And shall not I again choose thee for my Lord, my king, my husband, for the portion of my soul, for my chief, or rather my only delight?

Unconditional Election must bring us to this. It will naturally lead to this when handled with special prudence and care as the Westminster Confession teaches: “So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel”. We emphasise again Anthony Burgess's words: 'This point of election... is not to be agitated in a verbal and contentious way, but in a saving way, to make us tremble and to set us upon a more diligent and close striving with God in prayer, and all other duties.' May this be our own experience to the praise of the glory of his grace alone.

7. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Unchallengable

It was well said by G. S. Bishop that, "The reason why any one believes in election is, that he finds it in the Bible. No man could ever imagine such a doctrine—for it is, in itself, contrary to the thinking and the wishes of the human heart. Every one, at first, opposes the doctrine, and it is only after many struggles, under the working of the Spirit of God, that we are made to receive it...The reason why any one believes in election is just this, and only this, that God has made it known. Had the Bible been a counterfeit it never could have contained the doctrine of election, for men are too averse to such a thought to give it expression, much more to give it prominence."

Election is consistently God-centred and supernaturalist from beginning to end. This is why it is hated so much, our proud carnal nature sees things from a man-centred rather than a God-centred perspective. We always begin with ourselves and make man the measure of all things. “We have turned every one to his own way”, “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God”. Where this natural tendency is given full rein it rejects God and His claims altogether, because Sovereign grace is the direct opposite of human rebellion. Those who had assumed for many years that the sun revolves around the earth must have been astonished to discover that the earth actually revolves around the sun. How much greater is the change when a sinner acknowledges experimentally that salvation is all of the Lord and that in Him we live and move and have our being. All opposition to unconditional election comes ultimately from a man-centred perspective, there are two main such objections: one that it is unreasonable and the other more common and forceful objection is that it is unjust.

Unreasonable?
Some object against election because they cannot comprehend it and there are aspects of it beyond their reach, so they reject it as unreasonable. To be consistent they must equally dismiss the doctrines of the inspiration of Scripture, the trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the final resurrection since some aspects of these are beyond comprehension. It is in itself unreasonable to reject the truth of election solely upon the basis that human reason cannot entirely fathom it. If we will believe no more of God and His ways than we can comprehend, then we are simply putting him on the level of any man. As AW Pink has said: “Faith has an assurance that God is too wise to err, too righteous to be unjust; and therefore that He is infinitely worthy of our trust and subjection to His holy will."

Unjust?
The principal and most common objection to the doctrine of unconditional election is that it makes God guilty of gross injustice. In an age when rights and equality are exalted but authority is despised it is no surprise if it is seen as unjust for God to elect some to glory but pass others by without consideration of their works. In Romans 9 Paul anticipates this very objection, 'For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then, Is there unrighteousness with God?' v11-14. He immediately follows with 'God forbid!' It is unthinkable and impossible that it be so, God is a God of faithfulness and without injustice.

Paul goes on to state 'He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth'. God is free and sovereign and not required by a necessity of His nature to show mercy. If God’s nature required Him to show saving mercy to any, then it would oblige Him to show mercy to all. We are also wrong to assign priorities among the divine perfections in supposing that God is more glorious in His grace and mercy than He is in His power or his justice.

In our objections to election we are not thinking of how God actually is but rather how we imagine him to be. We have an idea of what it is for God to be righteous and He must conform to our prescription. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Ps. 50:21). In other words we think of God according to our own categories and measure him by a human standard. We think of God's attributes such as mercy and justice according to the qualities of human mercy and justice. But this is altogether wrong. justice is not to be brought down to the same level as human justice. James Ussher defines God's justice as that attribute: "whereby He is infinitely just in himself, of himself, for, from, and by Himself, and none other.” The rule of God's Justice is His Own free will as Calvin affirms: “The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found.” God has made us how he will and for what purpose he will."Hath not the potter power over the clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21).

What after all is justice? It is treating each person equitably and fairly, giving to him his due. This is human justice but we cannot ask what God owes to man as his due or right. Is He in His Providence bound to give physical health and strength, intellectual ability, social status etc. to all? We know certainly that He does not. God is no man's debtor: for "who has first given to him and it shall be recompensed unto him again?" (Rom. 11: 32, 33.). All of His creation is entirely dependent upon him and under obligation to him, "in him we live and move and have our being". No praise would be due to God for simply fulfilling a debt of obligation towards us.
Election is simply the taking of one and the leaving of another, and why should God be less free than man in this choice? To choose one person does not injure another –it simply leaves them as they were. Salvation is not a matter of justice, but of pure free grace, and grace is not anyone's right. It is a free gift freely bestowed and God says to our objections Matt 20:15."Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?"

Others will object that election must be unjust because the Bible says that God is not partial or a respecter of persons. But when the Bible uses this expression it means that whereas men usually show preference between people according to their wealth, nationality, or other status when they are really equal. God's grace is precisely not a respecter of persons because it does not choose anyone for anything that they are or will be or will do. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. God often chooses those whom men would never choose. A respecter of persons gives unequally to those who are equal, when they are bound to give equally to all. But as we have seen God gives freely and is not bound to give anything to anyone.

Would God have been unjust in leaving all to perish in their sins? Not at all. But often it is objected: if all are equally guilty, why does he not punish all? It would be just if everybody was treated the same. He must either save all or punish all. The objector recognises that there would be no injustice in punishing all but why should it then be unjust to resolve to save some? There is no injury done to those not chosen, they still justly receive the punishment that the objector has already agreed would be just for them to receive. The objector, however, will only acknowledge that God is just if all are treated the same but this is to impose their own standard of justice on God.

Some want to object that since God has received a ransom sufficient for the sins of all, all should receive the saving benefits of it. It is true that the atonement of Christ has such value that it is potentially sufficient for all – though it is not intended for all. This objection supposes that infinite mercy relates to the number that are saved, but infinite mercy is better seen in the manner in which they are saved. Moreover, when God administers the ransom he is freely giving of that which is his own. He has not obligated himself to apply this ransom to all.
Men will still object that is unjust, selfish and cruel for God to afflict some for the sake of his own glory. But what is the highest good? God is alone good in himself and all things are from him and for him. It is only right that it is so. The glory of God is the highest good, there can be no greater good than this. It is not selfish but consistent for God to act according to this purpose – he would not be God if He did not. The holy wisdom of God with respect to that highest good determined that both the mercy and the justice of God should be displayed. We could only say that God was unjust if he punished any who did not deserve the punishment or whom he had forced to be guilty. But this is not so, men willingly fall into sin, and perish.

Some wrestle with God's justice by saying that it is unjust of God to condemn sinners because we cannot avoid his sovereign predetermination. Where is human responsibility? If God is in control how can we have any responsibility? Or as the apostle Paul anticipates the objection: "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" The reply comes back: 'But who art thou, O man, that repliest [or margin: disputest] against God?' Will we with our corrupt reason argue with the great God of heaven and earth? Who are we to argue with Him? We must seriously consider the One against whom we argue. Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it why hast thou made me thus? If we consider our own consciences honestly we will wonder how we can imagine ourselves to be such absolute judges of infinite justice and holiness. "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not My way equal? are not your ways unequal?" (Ezek. 18:25). The Scriptures are quite clear that man is responsible to God for all his deeds. God treats him as rational and accountable, using appropriate means and motives to incline him to obedience unto his revealed will. In Romans 9, Paul goes on to argue that God's longsuffering with the vessels of wrath ver. 22 shows that men sin freely and harden themselves against His warnings.

God does not refuse mercy to any that seek it sincerely and penitently but He promises mercy to all such seekers. Those who refuse do so because of their own sinfulness which is not the effect of God's election. Who makes the lost to be lost? Whom has God ever caused to sin against his commandments and warnings? He says to the sinner: "Thou hast destroyed thyself yet in me is thine help" (Hos. 13:9). Anthony Burgess has said: “For no man is damned precisely because God hath not chosen him, because he is not elected, but because he is a sinner, and doth wilfully refuse the means of grace offered.” It has been said that "none shall be damned till his conscience acknowledges that he is worthy of it a thousand times."

We must simply submit to the fact that God desired for his own most wise reasons to show his mercy as well as his justice, showing what none deserved in some while showing what all deserved in others. Thomas Boston writes: "The glory and beauty of the divine attributes is displayed here with a shining lustre; as his sovereign authority and dominion over all his creatures to dispose of them to what ends and purposes he pleases; his knowledge and omniscience, in beholding all things past, present, and to come; his vindictive justice, in ordaining punishments to men, as a just retribution for sin; and his omnipotence, in making good his word, and putting all his threatenings in execution. The glory of his goodness shines likewise here, in making choice of any, when all most justly deserved to be rejected. And his mercy shines here with an beautiful lustre, in receiving and admitting all who believe in Jesus into his favour."

The Lord Jesus Christ could say as a perfect response to the truth of election: "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight". The more Christlike we become the more of this response to election will be evidenced in us.

6. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Unsearchable

Election is a holy mystery and it is presented in Scripture for our humble adoration rather than for dispute. We often want to know answers to questions that we are not called to search out. We want reasons behind God's sovereign choice that Scripture does not give. Hugh Binning says that “the reason of God's proceedings is inscrutable to us, unless we could understand God as well as he understands himself. The rays of his infinite wisdom are too bright and dazzling for our weak and shallow capacities.” There are limits of enquiry: we cannot and must not go beyond what has been revealed. Scripture tells us all that we need to know. Calvin warns against prying into that “sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Hugh Binning counsels: "we must open our eyes upon so much light as God reveals of these secrets, knowing that the light of the word is a saving, refreshing light, not confounding, as is his inaccessible light of secret glory... This is the best bond of sobriety and humble wisdom, to learn what he teacheth us; but when he makes an end of teaching, to desire no more learning. It is humility to seek no more, and it is true wisdom to be content with no less."

At the end of Romans 11 the apostle Paul speaks of the eternal counsels as an unsearchable treasury, wondering at their infinite depth. They are infinitely merciful, infinitely just and infinitely free and sovereign. 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!'

5. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Unconditional

Ultimate purpose
Before we consider the cause and origin of election we must reflect upon its ultimate purpose. What someone purposes in any action tells us much about its character. A rational mind tends to plan something by first determining its purpose and then setting about the means that will accomplish that objective. When we consider the ultimate purpose of election we can see that election is all about God and not as we may like to think, all about man.

1.God's supreme purpose in His decree of election as in all of his decrees is the manifestation of His own glory. Of him and to him and through him are all things(Rom. 11:36). "The Lord hath made all things for himself" (Prov. 16:4). Everything that has been decreed finds its purpose in God himself. There could be no higher or greater purpose than the glory of God. (AW Pink) "As God swears by Himself because He can swear by none greater, so because a greater and grander end cannot be proposed than His own glory, God has set up that as the supreme end of all His decrees and works." The elect are set apart for God Himself. "But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself" (Ps. 4:3) (Isa. 43:20, 21) "This people have I formed for myself", Ephesians 1:5, 6 "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself”

2.The second way in which the ultimate objectives and purposes of election are seen is in God's purpose that His people should be holy. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him" (Eph. 1:4). This begins in time and is perfected in eternity.

3.Thirdly, we can say that God’s purpose in election was the adoption of sons: (Eph. 1:5) "Having predestined us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto Himself according to the good pleasure of His will". Prof John Murray spoke of the prerogative of adoption as the apex of redemptive privilege. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him.” (1 John 3:1-2).
4.Fourthly and lastly it is clear that God’s purpose in election was the salvation of a people from a condition of sin, spiritual death and misery. "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation" (1 Thess. 2:13).

Original Cause
We have affirmed that election is a choice made by God not with the ultimate purpose of benefiting the creature but rather with the ultimate purpose of bringing glory to Himself by bestowing something upon the creature. It pleased the eternally blessed trinity to purpose to go out to certain creatures in free lovingkindness. Scripture will not allow us to find the origin of election anywhere else but in the sovereign will of God. "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15). Nothing outside of himself could control the will of God or force His choice. It was a free decision. The will of God could have no cause outside of itself, because that cause would then be greater and more excellent than God himself and he would be dependent on something outside of Himself. Eph. 1:9 It is all "according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself". Predestination is “according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph.1:11). One divine has said that this act can be assigned to no other reason, but to that of God's royal prerogative as the righteous Judge and Governor of the world. Thomas Boston has written: "No reason can be found for this but only in the bosom of God. There is nothing before, or above, or without his purpose [which can be said to be] the cause of all that grace and goodness that he bestows upon his chosen ones”.

The original cause of election is in God's purpose only not man's works. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (Rom. 9:11) "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth". It is clear that good works and holiness are not the cause but rather the effect of election. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). Ephesians 1:4 declares "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him"— not because we were holy, but so that we "should be holy". Since holiness was the purpose of election, it could never be the cause of it. Election is of grace not works. “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Rom. 11:5–6). A solemn consideration arises from that statement – when we introduce works into election we are taking grace altogether out of it.

Faith is not the cause or condition of election. The reason why any believe is because God gives them faith. Faith is not of ourselves but it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:9), Phil. 1:29. “unto you is given to believe on Christ”. We read that "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48), not "as many as believed, were ordained to eternal life."
The Arminian doctrine of predestination says that election is based upon God's foreknowledge of our faith and works. In other words, God looks ahead through time to see who will accept the Gospel and believe, and who will not. Those whom he foresees accepting the Gospel in the future are those he chooses and elects to be saved. This kind of "election" is based on the condition of future faith. The Arminian can say with his head held high "God chose me, because I understood the Gospel; because I exercised my free will properly."

But foreknowledge is very different in Scripture. For instance, Christ was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). God did not merely contemplate this event passively; He determined it. God foreknows everything that will happen, simply because He has ordained everything that shall happen. The only reason God can foreknow something is if it is certain to happen, but who made it certain? Only God can make anything certain. When we read of Christ as "a lamb" "foreordained before the foundation of the world," (1 Pet. 1: 19, 20) are we to think that God merely foresaw that He would suffer and then decided to foreordain him as Mediator? No. Those responsible for Christ's death did Acts 4:28 “whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”

It is a solemn thing to pervert the biblical doctrine of election because it tends to the doctrine of God. The Arminian doctrine of election challenges God's sovereign will and omnipotence (since God is dependent on whether man will or will not resist him).

4. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Unchangeable

Since election is the work of God we would expect it to be both everlasting and unchangeable. Ecc 3:14 "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Who will change it? Neither man nor angel can change this decree, how can they defeat the will of God "who doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay his hand or say unto him what doest thou?" Dan 4:35. Is. 14.27. "The Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it?" God will not Himself change this decree, since with the Lord "there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning (James 1:17) "I am the Lord, I change not." Mal 3:6. Is. 46.10. "my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." The Lord's wisdom and omnipotence cause His counsel to stand. This is why Scripture speaks (Heb. 6:17) of the "immutability of His counsel". "The foundation of God standeth sure" (2 Tim. 2:19). Nothing of all that there is in the universe or things future which the apostle Paul lists at the end of Romans chapter 8 "shall separate us from the love of God in Christ" "nay in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us" (Rom. 8:35 - 39).

The eternal character of election shows it to be unchangeable. The golden chain of redemption of which we read in Romans 8:29, 30 stretches from before time to when time shall be no longer. "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son...Moreover whom He predestinated, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified and whom He justified, them He also glorified." The Apostle Paul puts these things in the past tense because with God the thing decreed is so certain to be fulfilled that it has been accomplished already in principle from all eternity. "These five golden links," says BB Warfield, "are welded together in one unbreakable chain... It is 'election,' ...that does all this" (Pamphlet, Election, p.10). Because of the unbreakability of election the believer will never be safer than he is now, for he is already as safe as he can be. "This is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing." Since election is unchangeable, the believer can have assurance of election from various definite marks. If it was not so, Peter could not counsel believers, "to make their calling and election sure," 2 Pet. 1.9,10. It can be known even to others for Paul says 1 Thess. 1.4. "knowing brethren beloved your Election of God."

Thus far we have spoken of election as an eternal act of God concerning specific individuals, centred upon Christ and unchangeable. But there is very little controversy with mainstream Arminian teaching thus far. Many would agree substantially with these points. It is however when we come to identify the basis or original cause of election that we come to the real heart of election and the eye of the storm. It is at this point when it becomes clear whether our doctrine of election is ultimately man-centred or God-centred, whether it is according to Scripture or carnal preference. The Dutch Arminians or Remonstrants spoke of election as God's unchangeable purpose, but they made that purpose conditional on man which means that it isn't properly unchangeable after all. Yet election is unchangeable precisely because it is not dependent or conditional upon anything outwith of God Himself.

3. The Biblical Doctrine of Election emphasises Union with Christ

While Karl Barth draws entirely false conclusions from Scripture's teaching that election is in Christ, we must not allow this error to detract from this glorious aspect of the doctrine and it is worth dwelling upon the positive side of this truth. Election in Scripture is not an impersonal,
fatalistic form of predestination such as Muslims profess, it is uniquely Christ-centred. As William Perkins put it, "to dreame of any election out of him, is against all sense". Election is in Christ and through Christ.

This is clearly expressed in the Canons of Dordt: "From eternity He has also appointed Christ to be the Mediator and Head of all the elect and the foundation of their salvation." (I.7). The Father first chose Christ to the office of Mediator, and so He is called God's elect, Isa. 42:1. Since the elect were chosen in Christ, it necessarily follows that He was first chosen. Therefore they were predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son as the "first-born among many brethren" Rom. 8:29. Thomas Goodwin expresses this quaintly: "In the womb of election He, the Head, came out first, and then we, the members".

The Lord Jesus Christ was not, as it were, an after thought in relation to election, or simply the means to make the decree of election effectual. AW Pink asserts that Christ was predestinated for higher ends than simply the saving of His people. As the God-Man he was chosen for God Himself to delight in, so that God might behold all His perfections in union with a creature. Being united to the second person of the Godhead, the man Christ Jesus was exalted to a closer union and communion with God than any other so that the Lord speaks of Him as "the man that is my fellow" (Zech. 13:7), and "mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth" (Isa. 42:1).

Calvin referred to Christ as the mirror of our election in two important senses. First, from God's point of view "he must have first looked on our Lord Jesus Christ before he could choose and call us" (Sermons on Ephesians 33). This reflects that Christ was chosen first in order of nature but does not mean that Christ or his merits are the ground or conditions of election. The merits of Christ are the effects and not the causes of election. It was God's free love that sent Christ and therefore he could not be the cause of electing love. It has been well said that election does not find men in Christ, but puts them there.

Second, Calvin says that from our point of view Christ "is the mirror on which we must cast our eyes and look, when we desire to come to the knowledge of our election (Sermons on Ephesians 48)". We are to come to Christ "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:4-5). We must go to Christ before we seek to be sure of our personal election. It is a grievous error to instruct seekers to be sure of their election before they close in with Christ or instead of closing in with Christ. We must be sure to be in Christ before we can hope to be sure of our election.

2. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Ungeneralised

There have been various attempts to generalise election - many subterfuges to avoid what Scripture makes clear. Some have spoken of two kinds of election one election to faith (non-effectual) and another to salvation (effectual). Others have tried to say that election to glory is simply a general decree about salvation but there are no general and uncertain decrees only what Acts 2:23 calls the determinate counsel of God. Some have tried to teach that only the act of faith in the abstract was elected, but Scripture only speaks of people as the objects of election.

Then there is the view that God was not choosing some and rejecting others but merely "desiring" something in regard to sinners without being the cause of it. The Free Church of Scotland Declaratory Act of 1892 replaced the Westminster Confession's teaching on predestination by simply stating a vague conviction in: "the divine purpose of grace toward those who are saved". The liberal theologian Karl Barth taught yet another variation, that all men who have lived or will live were elected in Christ.

In contrast to all this error we must assert from the Bible that election is individual, personal, specific, and particular. God has made a distinction between some men and others. "Many be called, but few chosen" (Mat. 20:16); the apostle Paul (Rom. 11:7) distinguishes between "the election" and "the rest". Rom. 9 shows that there was personal election unto salvation within
the external election of Israel, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (9:6, 8). The names of the elect are said to be written in the book of life, while others are expressly said not to be written there, Rev. 17:8. They are a number which no man can number but are nevertheless known unto God.

The words used in the original Greek and Hebrew for election are personal, individual and particular. The main OT word for election bahar, expresses the idea of deliberately selecting someone or something after carefully considering the alternatives. The word implies a decided preference for, sometimes positive pleasure in, the object chosen. The OT also uses the
verb to know in the sense of love in relation to election e.g. Amos 3:2. When the NT speaks of foreknowledge it usually therefore means those who were foreloved. The NT always uses the verb to choose eklego in the middle voice, with a reflexive sense i.e. to 'choose out for oneself'.

The Canons of Dordt make it clear that "not all men are elect but that certain ones have not been elected" (I.15) and that the elect "a certain number of specific men" (I.7). The Westminster Confession refers to those predestined as "particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (III.4.).

1. The Biblical Doctrine of Election is Undeniable

Scripture teaches election to everlasting life for individuals as distinguished from the external election of nations such as Israel under the Old Testament. It is said that there is no book in the Bible where election is not expressly stated, clearly implied or at least illustrated. It is not
therefore a marginal topic in Scripture, indeed the words "elected" and "chosen" in one of their forms are used well over one hundred times. Various other expressions are used to describe election, such as: 'purpose', 'foreknowledge', 'predestination', 'obtaining salvation', 'being ordained to eternal life', and 'being written in the book of life'.

Besides being undeniably stated in Scripture, it is also indisputably a work of God alone. We read of 'your election of God' (1 Thess. 1:4). 'He hath chosen us' (Eph. 1:4); He hath appointed us 'to obtain salvation' (1 Th. 5:9). Those chosen are called “His own elect” (Luke 18:7). Moreover, the Greek word for predestinate prohorizō, is only ever used with God as subject.

It is also undeniable that election is accomplished in eternity. “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4); “According to the eternal purpose which He purposed” (Eph. 3:11); “. . . according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9).

Every Christian must therefore believe in a divine and eternal election or deny the very plainest expressions of Scripture. The puritan Christopher Love usefully defines election as “an act of God, whereby, from all eternity, He purposes within Himself, of His own pleasure and will, to bring a certain number of men unto salvation by Jesus Christ”. We have seen that it is an eternal act of God alone but there are further aspects of election to establish from this definition, viz. that election is solely of God's own pleasure and will, and that it is not generalised but concerns “a certain number of men”.

unconditional election: introduction

While all of the truths of the Word of God require a reverent and careful handling, the mysterious but glorious doctrine of predestination is one that demands the utmost care in our dealing with it. The Westminster Confession counsels that: “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care”. We must have the right attitude towards election, as the Puritan Anthony Burgess wisely notes: “This truth may be handled either sinfully or profitably; sinfully as when it is treated only to satisfy curiosity, and to keep up a mere barren speculative dispute.... This point of election... is not to be agitated in a verbal and contentious way, but in a saving way, to make us tremble and to set us upon a more diligent and close striving with God in prayer, and all other duties”. Our first priority is to make sure of our salvation in Christ, only then can we truly appreciate election. You and I may have an interest in the doctrines of grace but what is that if we do not have the grace of the doctrines? We must all confess our need of a closer acquaintance believingly and experientially with this high and holy doctrine of God's sovereign grace. May the Most High enable us by His Spirit and grant to us true humility in seeking to consider this precious truth out of His Word.

In considering unconditional election, it is important to begin by defining accurately the full character of the biblical doctrine of election. The Arminian doctrine of election errs by denying that it is unconditional but it is just as possible to err fundamentally on other aspects of the doctrine of election even while holding to an unconditional election. I will seek therefore to establish briefly these aspects under 4 headings, and then to deal with unconditional election, its objections and implications in more depth under 4 separate headings. Since the letter U is significant for election as part of the TULIP acronym each of the headings begins with this letter.

1. Firstly I want us to notice that The Biblical doctrine of Election is Undeniable. However we interpret it, we cannot avoid the fact that it is there in the Bible.
2. My second heading is that The Biblical doctrine of Election is Ungeneralised. Some try to generalise away the particularity of election but Scripture teaches that there are a definite number only that are the objects of electing grace.
3. Then in the third place we will consider that The Biblical doctrine of Election emphasises Union with Christ. Christ is the focus of election and not simply the means to bring it into effect.
4. Fourthly, The Biblical doctrine of Election is Unchangeable. Nothing can change God's purpose in election.
5. Then we consider the crux of the The Biblical doctrine of Election – that it is Unconditional. Nothing outside of God can be regarded as the basis for election.
6. Sixthly, The Biblical doctrine of Election is Unsearchable. We must accept that it is mysterious and we cannot exhaustively fathom its depths.
7. The Biblical doctrine of Election is Unchallengable – there are many objections against this doctrine but none can be sustained when considered in the light of truth.
8. And Lastly, the Biblical doctrine of Election is Useful. It is full of spiritual profit for the Christian.

The Glory of Christ's Sufferings

The Scriptures speak of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ as the depth of His humiliation (Phil. 2:8) and a cross of shame that He endured (Heb. 12:2). Yet He could say for Himself “The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.” (Jn 12:23). “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.” (Jn. 13:31). “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee” (Jn. 17:1).

The Lord Jesus Christ was showing himself to be the suffering Servant in whom the Father would be glorified (Is. 49:3). He that was called from the womb to be the Servant of the LORD, to bring Jacob again to Himself, though Israel would “be not gathered” but reject Him most cruelly and sinfully – yet would He be “glorious in the eyes of the LORD” (Is. 49:5). Few but the LORD saw Him as glorious in His sufferings. “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not” (Is. 53:3). “All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head” (Ps. 22:7). Even the Father forsook Him with the Heaven of His felt presence so that He had to cry “hide not thy face from thy servant” (Ps. 69:17). Yet the exceeding poverty of Christ would be the riches of His people; His rejection of the Jews would be the riches of the Gentiles in whom He would be glorified as light unto them in their darkness (Is. 49:6; Jn. 12:22-23). “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him” (Acts 3:13).

The Lord Jesus Christ was troubled exceedingly at the thought of His sufferings (Jn. 12:27-29). Yet His desire is for the glory of the Father in it. There is a sense in which the glory which should follow the sufferings of Christ broke in upon the deep night of soul suffering that He experienced in prospect of His soul being made an offering for sin. The dark clouds of the wrath of God were gold-edged with glorifying His Justice, Mercy, Love and Holiness. His Holiness was glorified by sin being removed, the Justice of God was glorified when it was vindicated in the full execution of the punishment due to the sin of His people. His Wisdom found a way to satisfy Justice and Mercy together and His Faithfulness to His promises was magnified. The Love of God was glorified in effectually securing its objects. If by the deliverance from Egypt at the Red Sea, the LORD was become glorious in power and holiness (Ex. 15:6&11), how much more in the exodus that Christ accomplished at Calvary? Of this work of redemption it can be truly and preeminently said: “His work is honourable and glorious”. “He hath shewed his people the power of his works” “He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion.” “The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein” (Ps. 111:2-6).

When the Lord Jesus Christ cried out “It is Finished” He was offering glory to God. “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorifythou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (Jn. 17:4-5). Thus He gave Himself “for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour” (Eph. 5:2). The glory of the LORD dwelt between the cherubim over the mercy-seat, and so it was that from this place of atonement that the glory of God shone forth (Ps. 80:1).

The glory of Christ was made great in this salvation (Ps. 21:5). Not only for the sufferings of death but even by the sufferings of death was He crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9 margin). He was made perfect through sufferings (Heb. 2:10). He was glorified in His soul immediately and straightway (Jn. 13:32), this was in His sufferings but also as His human soul did at His death pass immediately into glory and as His body was raised up in glory at His resurrection on the third day.

Though it was the depth of Christ's humiliation when His heel was wounded, yet it was His greatest glory on the earth when He crushed the head of the old serpent (I Jn. 3:8; Heb 2:14). If David got himself a name in smiting the Syrians (2 Sam. 8:13-14), how much more did the Lord Jesus Christ in the day of His battle get that name which is above every name (Phil. 2:8-9)? Is not Christ “glorious in His apparel”, red with the blood of His enemies (Gen. 49:11), “travelling in the greatness of His strength” (Is. 63:1)? He would come victorious, leading Captivity captive as the King of glory. “Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle” (Ps. 24:7). Since these things are so, our resolve must be “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:8).

The Tragedy of Virtual Worship

Virtual worship has become the norm in the evangelical church. The fact that reality has been forfeited for illusory good feelings should be obvious to anyone. Where is the reality in seeking to conduct church services with the slick patter of a Master of Ceremonies, punctuated by empty songs that mimic a worldly, easy style of rock music? And when all this is achieved by the pragmatics of applied marketing and business growth strategy rather than biblical principle where again is the reality?

Should we be surprised when religion is characterised in the media by a lack of reality and when in popular culture in general, Christian words have become empty words? The idea of the sacred seems to have vanished. The church thinks that it can broaden its appeal by mimicing the virtuality of the world. Why should folk want a mediocre version from the church of what they can already have from the world? In the same way that popular culture (particularly the sinister world of club culture) offers and manufactures brief ecstatic emotional experiences, the church has invented virtual worship (some, horrifically, have gone the whole way and developed 'rave' services). It is all of course, commercially driven with the latest worship fad also neatly manifesting itself as the leading marketing edge.

As Peter Masters shows this is the current point to which the sixties development of a popular culture version of worship has taken us. This revolution produced "a form of worship fashioned and conceived in the womb of the hippie meditational mysticism, in which hippies in their hundreds and thousands would sit on California hillsides with eyes closed, swaying themselves into an ecstatic state of experience. Former hippies carried into their new Christian allegiance the method of seeking the emotional release or sensations to which they were accustomed, and no one showed them a better way." Peter Masters, "Worship in the Melting Pot: Is New Worship Compatible with Traditional Worship?" in Sword and Trowel (no. 3, 1998), p. 13.

The apostle Paul speaks of the spiritual reality that should obtain in the worship of the Church, the unbeliever should come into the church service and be so convicted by God's Word that "falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth" (1Cor 14:25). Virtual worship creates 'virtual religion', and virtual religion creates virtual Christians. And sadly evangelicals have long been too effective at producing virtual Christians through the virtual conversions of high-pressure evangelistic technique.

Thus we hear of "post-modern" evangelical worship developing in the United States as the next stage beyond the blandness of so-called contemporary worship music and "seeker-sensitive/user-friendly" services. This can be a heady cocktail of any of the following: orthodox icons, rock music, candles, Gregorian chant, snippets stolen from Roman Catholic liturgies not forgetting some charismatic elements (see article by Daniel Harrell, Leadership Journal, Spring 1999, Vol.XX, No. 2, p.37). Youth For Christ in the UK have likewise developed in past years something called Labyrinth a multi-media "spiritual" journey experience that involves meditation, candles and music Anything is permitted as long as it feels "authentic." But what feels authentic is no standard of what is authentic, no longer is the standard spoken words that conform to Scripture. There may be a show of humility (and that word "show" is vitally significant) in these things but they are "will-worship".

But where carnal pretence reigns we find nothing better than the "novel spirituality" that was generated through manufacturing a golden calf which could be worshipped as the gods who had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. As John Calvin notes, man's mind, "so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols," so that "it dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity; as it sluggishly plods, indeed is overwhelmed with the crassest ignorance, it conceives an unreality and an empty appearance as God." (Institutes 1.11.8). Virtual worship brings God down to the conceptions of man and squeezes God into human capacities: human preferences and thoughts. The LORD has made it clear that He will not be worshipped according to the mind and will of man. "Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men" (Isaiah 29:13).

It is a conflict between carnal pretence and divine precept. The same conflict was apparent at the time of the Reformation (read "War Against the Idols", Carlos M. Eire). In fact, the Roman Catholic Church with its refusal to be instructed and directed by the Word of God alone has always mastered its own virtual worship of a man-made syncretistic type that focuses on the visual. Evangelicalism with its fashion-driven will-worship has taken the same route. We must remember, however, that the great tragedy of virtual worship is not just its fictitious nature but that it transgresses the second commandment and strikes at the glory of God.

mistaken assumptions about the Church

In the current climate of evangelical indifferentism there is a vital necessity of regulating our doctrine of the Church and its government by Scripture alone or establishing what is of divine right and authority. We must be clear that we have been provided with the revealed will of God
concerning the Church in the Scriptures. We are confined to express statement and command, approved example, or to what these entail, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory...is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture" (WCF I.6, 2 Tim. 3:16). We are not permitted
to govern the Church in our own wisdom, instituting that which is right in our own eyes for this would deny Christ His headship over His own Church. In matters of "ordinances" in the Church, there is a single definite will of God (1 Cor. 11:2, 16 &23).

What is meant by "good and necessary consequence" is not human wisdom but "reason captivated and subdued to the obedience of Christ" (George Gillespie). The consequence must be necessary, that is to say it must be demanded by a relevant Scripture passage. This means taking premises stated in the Scripture and using sanctified reason in order to draw their
inexorable conclusions which although not expressly stated in a particular verse are nevertheless entirely warranted as the conclusions of such a process. The doctrine of the Trinity (besides others) belongs to this method of using the Scriptures.

Some in our day will deny this application of the regulative principle. In fact they do not wish to apply the principle much at all except perhaps in the area of doctrinal teaching in order to maintain some sort of deference to the doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Most evangelical doctrinal statements claim to regard the Bible as the final authority in all matters of belief and practice, which actually entails a wider application of that doctrine whether they acknowledge this or not. The attitude has prevailed for a lengthy period in evangelicalism that there is a simple gospel to be safeguarded in the Scriptures but nothing else much matters. We
now live in a day when that "simple gospel" is, however, no longer purely scriptural in the mainstream of evangelical proclamation. Evangelicalism as David Wells has shown in No Place for Truth no longer has a theology: "Being evangelical has come to mean simply that one has had a certain kind of religious experience that gives colour to the private aspects of daily life,
but in which few identifiable theological elements can be discerned or, as it turns out, are necessary...It is enough for them to know that Christ somehow died for people" (p.131).

In a day of pragmatism and simply doing what works rather than what has Scriptural authority, it is anathema to the secularised ideology of evangelicalism to suggest that we should be bound by Scripture and its principles. Scripture is to bind us as little as possible. This is in fact an old battle that had to be faced squarely at the Westminster Assembly and during the whole post-reformation era. There were members of the Assembly that sought to defend the old Anglican view that gave "indifferent things" such as Church government to the monarch so that they could control the church, this is sometimes called Erastianism after Erastus who articulated the theoretical basis. Thomas Coleman was one of the Erastian Westminster divines, although their views were not prevalent in the eventual documents of the Assembly, they made themselves heard, as when Coleman preached to Parliament (July 1645) that the Assembly's agenda ought to be "Establish as few things by divine right, as well can be".

Divine right or jus divinum meant scriptural warrant. But if we do not give the authority to the Divine scriptures we give it instead to men, the king or individuals, human reason or prejudice or mere pragmatism and cultural influence. Although Coleman's principle may seem plausible it was crafted to serve his own agenda: he made it clear in the same sermon that the only thing that he wanted to establish by divine right was the King's/Parliament's authority by divine right. The attitude of the Scots commissioners to the Assembly on the other hand was "establish as much as possible by divine warrant" - it is in fact a stark choice, God's or man's authority.

It is necessary to be keenly aware of the other false assumptions that are most powerful and prevalent in the midst of these issues. Biblical studies has been under the influence of what are basically evolutionary assumptions for the last century and a half. The assumption of nineteenth-century liberalism, most notably represented by Friedrich Schleiermacher and Adolf Harnack was that religion evolved from polytheism through to monotheism and was becoming ever more rational. Schleiermacher's development was to make God simply a principle rather than a person, and to replace the Scriptures with "religious consciousness" as divine revelation. Thus the whole of religion became essentially subjective:the attributes of God were merely a
symbolical way of expressing aspects of "religious consciousness" such as the feeling of dependence. An individualistic religion like this, deemed the Church to be not strictly necessary, except as a "mere social centre, a human institution rather than the planting of God" (Louis Berkhof, p.561 -summarising the liberal position).

This was in fact quite similar to the Quaker view of each man inspired by the Spirit which bypassed all need for the Church, ordinances, sacraments, and even the Scriptures. It was
customary for quite a while therefore to deny that Jesus had ever intended to set up any kind of institution such as a Church, or even a community. All that he was concerned with, according to this view, was the more "pure", rational and evolved religion of liberalism: the Kingdom of God was merely a spiritual relation between the individual and his God. Developments of this view claim that Jesus expected an immediate apocalypse which would have made a new community a futile idea. Some evangelicals have taken on this higher critical idea: J.D. Allan in The Evangelicals: An illustrated version (Paternoster/Baker 1989) writes that, "when Jesus died, he seems to have made no provision for a continuing organization which would keep his ideas
alive" (p.5).

More prevalent is the idea that the disciples were something like a charismatic (or Quaker) sect who were immediately inspired by the Spirit and that there was no office or government in the early Church, but that the Holy Spirit governed alone and that this became quickly institutionalised with monarchical bishops in place by the end of the first century in a fixed
hierarchy. This is not only an academic notion but loosely corresponds to popular evangelical assumptions. Too often we read back our own reflection on to the New Testament Early Church and our own experience and ideal of charismatic chaotic spontaneity which has far more to do with a tradition of Evangelical pietism of the last century or so with its subjective, individualist fads than authentic apostolic experience. Millenarian or apocalyptic sects such as the Quakers and the Plymouth Brethren have often assumed that they are restoring a preinstitutionalist church where the Holy Spirit governs alone, and in doing so have exalted a particular interpretation of the Book of Acts above the other material in the New Testament. Restorationist charismatics do this in the same way that Edward Irving in the 19th century did, aiming to restore apostles as a prelude to Christ's second coming or other eschatological events. Such groups do not really use the book of Acts as an exact blueprint anyway, but rather their
interpretation. As Edward Donnelly points out: "Constitutions of Restoration churches do not, as far as we know, make provision for discipline by supernatural capital punishment (5:1-1)...Some who insist on a weekly Lord's Supper as the only scriptural pattern, for example, are not noted for a willingness to sell their possessions and hold all property in common (2:44,45)". (p.7, RTJ, 1998). We must seek to understand the full sweep of Biblical material and take especial note of the commands of Scripture rather than adopt assumptions and slogans that do not do justice
to the Scriptures.

How considering Christ restrains sin

“...let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us...Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.” Hebrews 12:1-4

There is enough provision in the person and work of Christ to escape and mortify every and any sin (Phil. 4:13; Rom. 13:4). Help has been laid upon this Mighty One so that He is able to give all needed grace to those that are in Him and that abide in Him (Jn. 15:3; Is. 40: 27-31; 2 Cor. 12:9). This is received and strengthened by acting faith upon the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:16-17). The consideration of Christ assists and enables us to act faith upon Him in order that we may find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16). Faith acted upon Christ cannot change sin in its nature but it can take away its efficacy or power to work. We ought then to consider each of the aspects of the person and work of Christ the Mediator in order to seek strengthening in the restraint of sin in the affections and conscience.

1. Consider Christ in eternity, when His delights were with the sons of men (Prov. 8:31). His delights were in His own people, not in their sins but rather in their justification, sanctification and glorification from sin. Sin is therefore averse to that which was Christ's eternal delight, the joy that was set before Him – that He might present to Himself a sinless, pure Bride with exceeding great joy. He loved you believer, with an everlasting loved and do you think that He loved you so in order that you might despise such love by continuing in sin?
2. Consider Christ in His covenanting with the Father in eternity to lay down His life for the sheep, to be a Surety for His people. His soul would be an offering for sin. Did he covenant His blood with God against sin and will you covenant with sin against God and against such a provision? Did He consider you from all eternity and will you not consider Him aright? Did He esteem you in the loathsomeness of your sin and will you then esteem your loathsome sins more highly than Him?
3. Consider His humbling of Himself by coming into a world of sin for you, and will you not forsake the world of sin for Him?
4. Consider Him taking a sinless human nature into union with His own Divine Person in order that He might be like unto His brethren in all things apart from sin. Scripture even says that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3), such was the humiliation though He was yet holy, undefiled and separate from sinners. If the soul of righteous Lot was vexed each day by the sin that he witnessed in Sodom, how much greater was the trial for the holy soul of Christ to witness sin on every hand. Shall we delight in that which must have vexed His soul so grievously? He that was rich became exceeding poor that we through His poverty might become rich and not so that we might yet long after the destitute poverty and disgrace of sin.
5. Consider Him being circumcised as symbolic of putting away sin that He did not have, promising that He would perform all righteousness and as humbled by being made under the Law (Gal. 4:4; 5:3). This was His voluntary obedience – shall we match it with our wilful disobedience?
6. Consider Him in the temptations that He experienced at the hands of Satan and will you not seek strength and help from Him in the day of temptation?
7. Consider His betrayal at the hands of one of His friends, and will you, as it were, covenant with sin to betray Him?
8. Consider His exceeding sorrow and anguish in Gethsemane because of the nature of the sacrifice that was required for sin. Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto His sorrow – will you despise such sorrow and go on in sin and not rather grieve over your past sins and the corruption of your heart?
9. Consider His denial by Peter and how he was forsaken by all His disciples, are you going to deny and forsake your Master out of love to sin and this present evil world?
10. Consider the cruel mocking and scourging that He faced at the hands of wicked men, being set at nought by the men of war. Will you yourself turn enemy to your Beloved and Friend by warring with sin against Him and despising His sufferings for sin as a thing of nought?
11. Consider the people's choice of Barrabas in preference to Christ. Will you choose sin above Christ, which is a murderer of men's souls, of Christ Himself and a thief of God's glory?
12. Consider His prayer for those that crucified Him. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”. Will you go on in sin with these words in the ears of your conscience, knowing what YOU do in sinning against Him? Surely it is true that if apostasy can be described as crucifying Christ afresh and putting Him to an open shame, sin lapsed into by the professing Christian wounds Him afresh in some way.
13. Consider His sufferings in His body, painfully and shamefully bleeding to death. Read Psalm 22 in order to have a sense of the physical agonies that He experienced in every part of His body to the utmost (Ps. 22:14). Will you despise such sufferings in embracing the sin that caused your Saviour such agonies?
14. Consider what it means when Scripture declares that He “condemned sin in the flesh” and “suffered in the flesh”. He came to condemn that which condemned us. Let Christ be the ruin of sin in you.
15. Consider the railing and blasphemy He endured upon the cross and will you revile Him to the face by joining company with sin and so standing in the way of sinners and sitting in the seat of the scornful?
16. Consider the depth of His soul sufferings. Forsaken of God that you should never be forsaken of God eternally. Passing through the overwhelming consuming fire of the wrath of God and drinking the sup of damnation to the uttermost. Will you love the sin that poured Hell intensively into the soul of the Saviour, all for your sake that this should not be your eternal portion?
17. Consider His continuing under the power of death for a time. The sting of death is sin. Your sin meant death for Christ – will you not put it to death?
18. Consider His resurrection and that it is the same exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe according to the working of His mighty power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead (Eph. 2:19-20). How then with such power at work in you through the Spirit of Him that raised Christ from the dead are you not able to mortify the deeds of the body and live unto righteousness?
19. Consider His exaltation to the right hand of the Father. It was when He had by Himself purged our sins that He sat down. We are seated with Him there. “ If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry”
20. Consider His kingly rule, the purpose of which is to subdue all His and our enemies. What a rebellious enemy sin is – and will you join with an enemy of the King of Kings and your own self? Will you not rather plead the promise: “he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19).
21. Consider His prophetic office which is to teach us the will of God for our salvation. “This is the will of God even your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven” (Heb. 12:25).
22. Consider His high priestly intercession for us: “I have prayed for thee”. His wounds and blood intercede on behalf of His people. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Yet we are told of this in order that “ye sin not”.
23. Consider the second coming of Christ. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry...But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:4-5, 8-10). “it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2-3).
    O that you and I would be without offence until the day of Christ (Phil 1:10). “the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.”
    

The incarnation correctly stated and defined

The correct way of stating the incarnation is to say that the Eternal Son took a human nature into union with His own Divine Person. This is what is stated by the Westminster Confession of Faith (VIII 2). "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin" It is also implied in the Larger Catechism (Q36) that the Lord Jesus Christ "who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fulness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever." See also Shorter Catechism Q21.

The Scriptures make this truth clear in the following passages:

John 1:1, 14; John 10:30; I John 5:20; I Tim. 2:5; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14, 16-17; Heb. 4:15; Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Heb. 7:24-25

The medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas used this terminology: "It is more proper to say that a divine person assumed a human nature, than to say that a divine nature assumed a human nature".

But why is this the case?

1. The Divine nature cannot be said to have assumed a human nature, because this would entail that the whole Godhead rather than just the Eternal Son, would have been united to human nature. The whole Godhead would have become incarnate. We only read in Scripture, however, that it was the divine essence of the Son which was united to man's nature.

2. The Divine nature cannot be said to have assumed a human person. If this was so there would have been a fourth person in the Godhead. Rather we understand that His human nature assumed a personality only in union with the Eternal Son. A human nature was assumed rather than a human person because he identified with what was common to that nature and not was particular to individuals. Thus, it was necessary for him to experience the hunger, thirst, grief, pain, weariness etc. that was common to human nature but not necessarily the diseases which only afflict individuals.

3. The Eternal Son cannot be said to have assumed a distinct human person because the human nature would have then belonged to that person and not to the Eternal Son.

4. The Eternal Son rather than the Father or Spirit must have assumed a human nature because there would then be two Sons in the Trinity. It was more fitting that the Eternally begotten son should be the one through whom the adoption believers as sons should be accomplished (Gal. 4:4-7).

5. The Word was made flesh by a personal action - he took human nature to Himself. He did not cease to be what he was before rather he added a nature to His person.

Emptied himself of all but love? A strange error

The very popular hymn by Charles Wesley, “And Can it be That I should gain,” originally entitled "Free Grace": contains several serious heresies in the following words.

Amazing love!
How can it be?
That thou my God shouldst die for me!
'Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies:
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the first born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
'Tis mercy all!
Let earth adore
Let angel minds enquire no more!

He left his father's throne above,
So free, so infinite his grace,
Emptied himself of all but love,
and bled for Adam’s helpless race.

The first error is Theopaschitism, a heresy from the 5th century which emphasises the idea that God suffered. Wesley revived this idea with his assertion "Amazing love! How can it be - that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" and "’Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies". The divine nature cannot suffer, though a divine person in a human nature can suffer. It is dangerous to express the idea that God died or suffered The second heresy is in the words "Emptied Himself of all but love" which is the error of kenoticism, that Christ laid aside either the possession or exercise of divine attributes at the incarnation. Wesley"s words seem to lean towards the former. This idea is also known as the kenosis theory and is derived from a false interpretation of Philippians 2:6–8. Kenosis comes from the Greek word to empty which is behind the translation "made himself of no reputation". The third heresy is that of Universal Atonement that Christ died for all mankind in all ages. This is against the testimony of Scripture which teaches that Christ died for His people. It is also against justice since it asserts the double punishment of sin, those who are eternally punished are punished for sin that has already been punished in Christ. The danger of devising, using and approving human, non-inspired materials of praise in the worship of God in place of those inspired and provided by the Holy Spirit (Psalms 1-150) is clearly demonstrated by such heresies. All put together it makes little theological sense. Few may realise what errors they take on their lips in singing such hymns, others imbibe them through an emotional attachment to such words.

What is the kenotic theory?
Wesley may well have derived the second error from Moravian influences, particularly Count von Zinzendorf (1702-1760). Dorner, summarises the Moravian"s views "we assume Zinzendorf's idea to have been that the self-conversion into a human germ, which then appropriated to itself material elements from Mary, so that the Son of God woke up to life in Mary a man." Charles" brother John Wesley seems to have had a more orthodox view of Philippians 2:6–8 stating that Christ "veiled his fullness from the eyes of men and angels; "taking," and by that very act emptying himself, "the form of a servant; being made in the likeness of man," a real man, like other men... "becoming obedient" to God, though equal with him" Sermon 85 "On Working out our own Salvation". Charles Wesley's view appears to be similar to the Lutheran theologian Gottfried Thomasius (1802 - 75), who argued that there are two kinds of divine attributes, internal/ethical (love, joy) and external (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.). The eternal Son "set aside" the external attributes and revealed the internal “love”. This was also the view of A M Fairbairn in “The Place of Christ in Modern Theology” (1893).

There have been various ways of asserting kenoticism. All in some way maintain the idea that the divine nature was in some way essentially adjusted and limited by the incarnation. The kenoticism of the 19th century Tübingen theologians was that the divine Logos limited himself in becoming incarnate. For instance, kenotic theorists maintain that Christ as God was not omniscient and did not know the time of the end of the world (Mark 13:32) he was limited by his human limits of knowledge. The eternally pre-existent Logos was brought within the limitations of finite personality. There is therefore a connection between kenoticism and theopaschitism since the latter also teaches that the incarnation has changed the nature of Deity, in this case that it imports passibility or the ability to suffer into the divine nature. These are a selection of the variations among those that espouse some form of kenotic theory:

1.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of His divine consciousness,”
2.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of the eternity-form of His being,”
3.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of the relative attributes of His Deity (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence),”
4.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of the integrity of infinite Divine existence,”
5.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of the Divine activity,”
6.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of the actual exercise of His Divine prerogatives.”
7.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself of all the divine attributes”
8.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself by giving up the independent use of His divine attributes.”
9.The Eternal Son “emptied Himself because self-limitation was a natural principle within the eternal trinity between Son and Father”

Some of these are not at all easy to follow. The Baptist theologian A H Strong in his Systematic Theology, took the view that this self-emptying referred to the laying aside of “the independent exercise of the divine attributes”. He continues to elaborate on this however, “Omniscience gives up all knowledge but that of the child, the infant, the embryo, the infinitesimal germ of humanity. Omnipotence gives up all power but that of the impregnated ovum in the womb of the Virgin. The Godhead narrows itself down to a point that is next to absolute extinction”. The kenotic theory has led to many unguarded rhetorical remarks that are unfitting in dealing with the mystery of godliness, that God was manifest in the flesh. It is still very popular at the present time. The Macarthur Study Bible comments: “Though Christ had all the rights, privileges and honours of deity...His attitude was not to cling to those or His position but to be willing to give them up for a season”.

Some paraphrases taking liberty with the very words of God, have sought to enforce the kenosis theory. J B Phillips renders this, "For he, who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his privileges as God"s equal, but stripped Himself of every advantage by consenting to be a slave by nature and being born a man." Moffatt makes it to read, "Though he was divine by nature, he did not set store upon equality with God, but emptied himself by taking the nature of a servant; born in human guise and appearing in human form."

Criticism
It is vital that we understand that this does not so much concern the interpretation of Philippians chapter 2, rather it concerns the fundamental question as to how the Lord Jesus Christ is God and Man and what the nature of God is. The kenotic theory amounts to a redefinition of God. If the Eternal Son "suspended" His omnipresence and omniscience until His ascension then such attributes must be able to be limited indeed put in abeyance without affecting the true divine nature of God. How can kenotic theorists be sure that these attributes were resumed after the ascension? How could one member of the Trinity suspend such aspects of the Godhead since the Trinity work in harmony rather than independently? Presumably the theory does not maintain that the whole Godhead suspended omnipotence etc. during the incarnation yet it allows for this as a possibility. The truth is that omnipotence, omniscience etc. are not "rights" or "prerogatives" that God possesses but rather what He is. The divine essence is immortal, invisible, only wise. Moreover, God is unchangeable He cannot change in His divine being and essence without ceasing to be God. Any suggestion that through the incarnation the divine nature changed can only mean the claim that God ceased to be God.

The kenotic Christ is not truly the Eternal Son, "by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:2-3). It was only the one who was God omnipotent creator and sustainer of all things who could have "by himself purged our sins". He was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Christ could refer to Himself as the “Son of Man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). How was this so if he was not omnipresent?

The Chalcedonian Creed expresses the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ "at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead... one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ". The kenotic theory seriously errs from this because it does not confess the incarnate Son to have been complete in Godhead and to have had the same substance with the Father as regards his Godhead. The kenotic theorists also regard the natures as being subject to change (contrary to Heb 13:8) and confusion.

The Eternal Son emptied himself of nothing. He did not leave behind Him His divinity or His power, or any of His attributes. He made himself of no reputation by taking the form of a servant, He emptied Himself not by subtraction but by addition, by taking a human nature into union with His own divine person. It was not the essential glory, the glory which He had with the Father before the world began, that he laid aside but only the manifest revealed glory before men. The essential glory remained while the external revealed glory was veiled but not limited in any significant or essential way. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. Despite the veil of flesh those with Spirit-given faith could perceive the essential glory, "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, (the glory as of the only begotten from the Father) full of grace and truth". “No man can see God at any time” in His essential glory, thus His glory was revealed in various ways at different times. “The only begotten son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. The theophanies of the Old Testament where the Eternal Son appeared as the Angel of the Lord and in the likeness of human flesh are instances of a different revelation of that glory. His glory was revealed through his miracles (John 2:11). There was a glory revealed at the transfiguration yet Christ was hid from even his disciples on the road to Emmaus. We can speak therefore of the revealed divine glory of Christ being in part concealed or veiled by flesh as it were, and so to some extent laid aside before men when he took the form of a servant.

Translating the AV: John Bois' Notes

In the previous article on the life and labours of John Bois we followed him until his death in 1643. Before he died, however, he prepared his last will and testament in which he first bequeathed his soul 'unto the hands of almighty God, from whom I first received it, nothing doubting but that he will restore it unto me again at the general resurrection'. Bois also made clear instructions for the preservation of his papers, which recorded a lifetime of study in the languages of the Scriptures and amongst these were the notes of all the proceedings of the revision committee of the Authorised Version. Anthony Walker, who wrote the biography of John Bois, tells us that while the work of the revision was being done 'he [Bois], and he only took notes of their proceedings, which he diligently kept to his dying day'. These notes were lost from 1688 until 1964, when Professor Ward Allen located a handwritten copy among the papers of William Fulham, a seventeenth century antiquarian and collector, whose papers were in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University.

In 1969 the notes were published and remain in print (Translating For King James: Notes Made by a Translator of King James's Bible, trans. and ed. by Ward Allen, Vanderbilt University Press, 156pp, pbk, $19.95 ISBN 0-8265-1246-1). They run to thirty-nine pages and are the only record of some of the deliberations and preferences of the translators, most especially the twelve members of the revision committees, covering the text from Romans to Revelation. (Ward Allen has also, together with Edward C. Jacobs, collated the scribal notes in a copy of the Bishops’ Bible used by the translators to record revisions for the Gospels, The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress, University of Arkansas Press, 1995). Since Ward Allen published the notes another earlier copy has been discovered and has been compared with Allen’s copy by David Norton in 'John Bois’s Notes on the Revision of the King James Bible New Testament: A New Manuscript' (The Library, 1996, 18/4, pp.328-346). Norton comments that Bois’s notes, 'give a unique insight into the way the translators worked, and they show above all the translators’ sensitivity to the nuances of the Greek and the level of scholarship they brought to their work' (p. 328). The notes are crucial as a testimony to the piety, learning and scrupulous diligence of the translators in searching into the language and meaning of the Scriptures. In what follows there are a sample of passages in which the notes testify to this.

Carefulness
One way in which we see the endeavours of the translators to follow strict faithfulness to the letter of Scripture is in passages where there are various possible interpretations which are not resolved by the grammar of the Greek. In such instances the translators refused to impose a translation which would favour one single interpretation above other possibilities. In 1 Peter 1:7 we find the phrase 'that the trial of your faith...might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ'. The question of interpretation relates to the words 'unto praise' and who the praise would be directed to? Since it is 'your faith', should it also be 'your praise'? Or is the praise to God alone? As Ward Allen notes the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible had added extra words such as 'your' or 'to be unto you' in order to interpret the praise as accruing to the believer. The AV, however, followed Tyndale in translating the words simply as they are in the Greek without additions. John Bois records in his note the alternatives 'that is to say, praise of God, or your praise'. He believed that the grammar of the Greek gave no authority for making explicit either interpretation. This was not a desire for obscurity, however, but a refusal to impose interpretation in translation. In recognition of this, Bois adds 'We have not thought that the indefinite sense ought to be defined'. It should be noted in passing that at least the Geneva and Bishop's Bible translations indicated the extra words by brackets or italics whereas many modern translations (particularly those wedded to a paraphrasing 'thought for thought' mode of translation) simply decide upon what they think the writer means and then impose that interpretation in their own words.

Another question of interpretation arose in considering Hebrews 2:9 'we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour'. As Bois puts it 'it is uncertain whether the suffering of death should be considered as an argument of the humility of Christ , or as a cause of glory'. In other words should it read that Christ was crowned with glory and honour as a reward because of the suffering of death or should it read that Christ humbled himself by taking a human nature (made a little lower than the angels) in order that he should enter into the ultimate humiliation of the suffering of death? Both are truth, but which is the truth taught by the text? Simply rearranging the commas would render either possible. In part the interpretation centred on how the Greek word 'dia' (translated 'for' above) should be translated. As Bois shows, it can be rendered 'through', 'for' or 'for the sake of' or even 'by'. Those who favoured either could both appeal to Phil. 2:8-9 where both doctrines are set forth. The simple word 'for' was chosen ultimately and the translation favours the view that the suffering of death in this verse is more closely related to Christ's humiliation than his exaltation, nevertheless the margin gives the alternative possibility of translating 'dia' with the word 'by' which would tend to the other interpretation. This reveals the evenhandedness and carefulness of the translators. As the Preface says they 'sought the truth rather than their own praise'.

The translators used the margin to include what they termed 'diversity of signification and sense' and a close study of the notes shows how the the margin was used in order to supply a secondary or fuller meaning to the words translated in the text (e.g. Phil 2:20; 1 Tim1:6). In Hebrews 5:7 there is a difficult verse to render which speaks of the prayers offered by Christ in the days of his flesh, he was heard 'in that he feared'. Bois' notes reveal that there are two difficulties in these words. The Greek word 'eulabeian' in context could mean fear, reverence or piety. The Greek word 'apo' could mean from, after, out of, because of. The translation 'in that he feared' allows the interpretation that Christ was heard in the expression of his fears, so as to be saved from his fear or that he was heard because of his reverential Godward fear, which is reinforced by the marginal note 'or for his piety'. The New King James Version asserts without question and without alternative, 'because of his godly fear'. It may well be that this is the correct interpretation, but it is clear that the AV translators shrank from imposing it upon the text as the only possibility.

We ought also to note the carefulness of the translators to the literal sense of Scripture. Instead of rendering the thought they sought to render the words as far as possible. In relation Hebrews 13:3 'Remember...them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body' they noted that the idea behind the last clause was 'as being even men yourselves' and 'as even yourselves enduring adversity with them', but Bois notes that the most literal is 'as being yourselves also in a body' and it is the most literal that they chose. Again the most literal rendering does not narrow down the options of interpretation and is therefore a more careful and faithful way of dealing with the words of Scripture.

Knowledge of Greek
The notes that John Bois has left are also crucial because they show the fallacy of many modern assumptions about the 'limited' knowledge of Greek that they suppose the translators of the AV to have possessed. An interesting story of how the same mistake was made in the seventeenth century is often told about Dr Richard Kilbye who was Oxford Professor of Hebrew, and reckoned among the foremost Hebraists of his day. One Lord’s Day Dr Kilbye heard a young preacher spend most of his sermon criticising several words as they were translated in the then recent translation. The preacher painstakingly gave three reasons why the Greek word should not be translated as found in the AV. Later that evening both the preacher and Dr Kilbye were invited to a meal. Dr Kilbye began to explain that the translators were very much aware of the preacher’s three reasons and had given them careful consideration, but they had thirteen other reasons that were far more compelling for making the translation that they did.

Men still leap to such assumptions. Take for instance 2 Corinthians 2:17 'For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.' The Greek word translated 'corrupt' is the word 'kapeleuontes'. James R. White in The King James Only Controversy claims that 'if the KJV translators were alive today they would gladly admit that 'peddle' is a better translation than 'corrupt,' and would adopt it themselves.' (p.114). Edwin H. Palmer, who was the Executive Secretary of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, regards 2 Corinthians 2:17 as an obscurity in the AV. (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth Barker, editor. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], p.149). John Bois' note shows that the translators were in fact aware of the various shades of meaning present in the word kapelountes. 'v. 17. kapeleuontes] [being a retail dealer, playing tricks, corrupting] i.e. notheuonetes [adultering]. kapelos is derived apo tou kallunein ton pelon [from glossing over lees] by corrupting and adultering wine.' (p. 51).

It was commonplace for wine merchants to water down their wine, mixing it with new harsh wine in order to pass the product off as vintage quality which would be more expensive (see New Testament Metaphors, Anthony Byatt, Pentland Press, 1995, pp.259-60). Thus the word 'kapeleuontes', as Bois rightly notes, has a double meaning of deceitful adulterating and cheating. The most important notion is not the profit made from the adulteration but the corruption itself. One can peddle the word for profit without necessarily seeking to adulterate it. Thus the AV translation is to be preferred over against that of the NIV and NKJV. The translation 'corrupt' is also borne out by the word 'sincerity' (Greek 'eilikrines') used later in the verse which is a word that literally signifies freedom from impurities or complete purity, something that has been held up to the light to confirm its purity. The English word sincere had an original meaning of pure and unmixed.

Various lexicons show that while the word can mean a peddler or retailer it was also used to refer to one who sells with deceit, a corrupter. According to Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature, p.403 the word came to mean 'to adulterate'. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1977 edition], pp.324-325) states, 'But as peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain . . . (the word) was also used as synonymous with 'to corrupt, to adulterate.' Kittle's Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament notes that it has the meaning 'to falsify the word (as the 'kapelos' purchases pure wine and then adulterates it with water) by making additions...This refers to the false Gospel of the Judaizers.' (Vol. III., p. 605).The early Church Fathers understood the verse to refer to those who corrupt God's word. Athanasius wrote: 'Let them therefore be anathema to you, because they have, 'corrupted the word of truth.' (Defence Against the Arians, III:49.) Gregory-Nazianzus alludes to 2 Corinthians 2:17 using the word 'corrupt:' 'And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many, able to corrupt the word of truth, and mix the wine, which maketh glad the heart of man, with water, mix, that is, our doctrine with what is common and cheap, and debased, and stale, and tasteless, in order to turn the adulteration...' (In Defence Of His Flight To Pontus, II:46)

In places the knowledge of Greek and its wider usage possessed by the translators is certainly illuminating. The note for 1 Peter 5:5 shows that the word that the apostle uses to exhort Christians to 'clothe' themselves with humility relates to a white outer garment worn by slaves which identified them as such. Ward Allen notes that previous translations had all understood the requirement to be an inward ornamentation with humility whereas in the light of this knowledge of the word and the context the AV shows that it relates very much to our outward conduct and testimony.

Doctrine
Bois' notes tell us much more about the translators, however, than their linguistic erudition. Bois often interprets and comments on certain passages in his notes showing a perceptive grasp of vital doctrine. For instance in relation to justification by faith alone Bois comments on Romans 3:25-26 'to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus'. Bois shows how God's justice and mercy are both perfectly fulfilled in justification, and that the meaning of the verse is that 'the justice of God stands whole, whether we contemplate sins having been pardoned, or indeed to be pardoned, and which are now pardoned'. 'Scarcely another place is to be found more apt to this point, so that there is exhibited how well the justice of God joins with His mercy: He is dikaios [righteous], i.e. at the same time just; and nevertheless dikaioei [He justifies], i.e. He justifies the sinner, i.e. He is merciful in the highest degree'.

There are also useful reflections upon passages that are difficult doctrinally. Commenting on Hebrews 12:15 'Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God' Bois says that these 'words seem to be said to those specifically, to whom the care has been assigned of ecamining the habits and life of others, that none through negligence be deprived of, etc. or that none absent them selves from the grace of God. by charitos tou Theou [the grace of God] I understand the public proclamation of the Gospel'. In other words Bois does not interpret these words in an Arminian way, that is is possible to fall from saving grace but that it is dangerous to forsake the means of grace and the word of God's grace negligently as in Hebrews 10:25.
In relation to Hebrews 12:17, Bois gives his understanding of the difficulty in relation to Esau not being able to find any place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears. It is not to be understood that someone such as Esau can forego repentance though they earnestly desire it rather 'he could not bend the mind of his father, or persuade him, so that having altered his determination he would recall and rescind the blessing with which he had blessed Jacob'. The margin of the AV confirms this with the explanation 'or way to change his mind'

Piety
At times, Bois cannot resist commenting in such a way on the text that he not only explains but applies its truth. There is the delightful aside on the words 'there is none occasion of stumbling in him' 1 John 2:10 - 'the placid course of him who remains in the light'. He notes solemnly upon James 1:15 which describes the progress of sin: 'Suggestion, Delight, Agreement, Act, the four steps of sin'. He is also practical in his comments, such as on Romans 12:10 'In honour preferring one another', which is elucidated as, 'let each one of you strive to prevail in giving honour to another'. On Ephesians 6:4, he notes as an experienced father notes 'it falls out from too great austerity that children are angry with their parents, and bear their authority reluctantly and impatiently. In relation to Romans 14:5 'Let every man be persuaded in his own mind', the note reads 'let each one acquire for himself true knowledge from the word of God, so that without doubt be may perceive what the will of God is'. Such comments show that this was not a scientific and detached enterprise for the translators but a humble and devout search after the truth with a real endeavour after the practical outworking of it.

These notes resolve some but not all questions of interest in relation to the reasons for the translation of certain words and passages in the AV. This brief book provides interest to those who wish to know more about the translators and the translation of the AV but also gives genuine insight into the Scriptures, and so may be of use in reference for ministers and students of the Bible. We should remember the translators not simply for their eminent scholarship but also for their piety, 'in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of it, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord'. The translators were conscious of their indebtedness to the help of God in their studies, acknowledging that it was 'through the good hand of the Lord upon us' that they succeeded in their work. As one of the 'poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known', we are indebted to John Bois for having preserved a small portion of the labours that were required for so great a work.