2504tooltip01: ## "The Greek word ginóskō (γινώσκω) translates to the Hebrew word yada (יָדַע). Both words mean 'to know,' 'to understand,' or 'to perceive' (Google)
With regard to the important question, which has been in controversy ever since the sixteenth century: “In what relation does faith stand to election?” we must bear in mind that notionally (notionaliter, begrifflich) Scripture places faith neither before nor after election.
Faith was placed before election by all the later Lutheran theologians who taught that God elected those who will be saved, in view of their foreseen faith (intuitu fidei finaiis).
Faith is placed after election by the Calvinists, who teach that faith, the same as Christ’s redemption, is merely the execution of God’s eternal, absolute (arbitrary) decree of predestination.
As a matter of fact, the right relation of faith to eternal election is this, that saving faith, wrought by the Holy Ghost, belongs into election as the means by which the object of election is accomplished. In other words, God in His eternal counsel of grace decreed to save His elect saints through faith in Christ Jesus, Eph. 1, 3—8; 1 Pet. 1, 2; or we may say, from eternity He graciously endowed the elect with faith and thereby separated them from the lost world (massa perdita).
Of this the Formula of Concord writes Thor. Decl., XI, 44: “God in His counsel, before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, by the power of the Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through the Word, everything that pertains to our conversion.” So also Dr. Walther declares: “We teach that God, as He saves us in time through faith, so also from eternity He decreed to save the elect through faith; and just this, according to Scripture, our Confessions, and our doctrine, is the decree of eternal predestination. ... We believe, teach, and confess according to Scripture and our Confession that God has chosen us to salvation through faith.” Christl. Dogmatik, III, 548 ff.
Since, then, God has chosen the elect unto faith in Christ, we regard the faith which the elect receive in time, just as their whole state of grace, which follows such faith, also as the effect, or result, of their eternal election (2 Tim. 1, 9 : “who hath called us according to His own purpose and grace”; Acts 13, 48: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed”). Faith, then, according to Scripture is rightly viewed both as the effect of election and as the means by which its purpose is accomplished. Chemnitz writes (Enchiridion., p. 109): “The election of God does not follow after our faith and righteousness, but precedes it as a cause of all this.” And the Formula of Concord says Thor. Decl., XI, 8: “The eternal election of God ... is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto.”
From this doctrine of Scripture and the Lutheran Confession the later Lutheran dogmaticians (since Hunnius, f 1603) departed, teaching that God elected such as are saved in view of their foreseen final faith (intuitu fidei fitialis, ex praevisa fide finali). This view they sought to justify by taking the verb foreknow (Horn. 8, 29: προέγνω) in the sense of knowing before or seeing before (nudam scientiam denotans).
Accordingly they interpreted St. Paul’s statement in Kom. 8, 29 thus: “Whose final faith He foreknew or foresaw (quorum fidem finalem praescivit sive praevidit) He also did predestinate” (καὶ προώρισεν). This explanation has been adopted by some modern exegetes (Philippi), who accepted the intuitu-fidei theory either on synergistic grounds or on account of its supposed greater dearness and fitness.
But to substitute the words quorum fidem finalem praescivit sive praevidit for the plain words of the apostle "whom He did foreknow" (οῦς προέγνω) is a violation of the text, since it forces upon the statement of the apostle something that it does not express (eisegesis). St. Paul does not say: “whose final faith He foreknew,” but: "whom He foreknew.” The object of “He foreknew” (προέγνω) is not faith, but a certain number of persons, whom the apostle calls “the called according to His purpose,” v. 28.
In addition to this, the intuitu-fidei theory is directly anti-Scriptural, since Holy Scripture plainly teaches that the faith which the elect receive in time is not the cause, but rather the effect of election, Acts 13, 48; Matt. 24, 22—24.
For “final faith” other exegetes substitute in this passage good works (Ambrose: quorum merita praescivit), or love (Weiss, Ebrard), or the good conduct (facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, voluntas non repugnans, sed assentiens, Melanchthon), in short, some good quality of the elect, which explains why some were chosen and others were not (Cur alii, alii non?).
Over against this synergistic interpretation, Luther, as also the Formula of Concord, regarded the verb to know or foreknow as used in a peculiar sense, which it frequently has in Scripture (Luther: zuvorversehen, to determine beforehand; the Formula of Concord: in Onaden bedenken, graciously to consider; clementer praescire, graciously to foreknow; Luthardt: ein aneignendes Zuvorerkennen, an appropriating foreknowing; others: sich zu eigen machen, to make a person one’s own; sich verbinden, to join some one to oneself).
In this sense γινώσκειν, following the use of the [Hebrew]2504tooltip01 יָדַע (cp. Deut. 7, 6 with Amos 3, 2), is used in Gal. 4, 9: “After that ye have known God, or rather are known of Cod”; Rom. 11, 2: “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew”; 1 Cor. 8, 3: “If any man love God, the same is known of Him.”
In all these and many other passages of Scripture the verb to know or to foreknow does not designate mere knowledge, but a knowledge joined with love (nosse cum affectu et effectu), so that the person thus known of God is made His own and acknowledged by Him as His own. In this sense we take the verb προέγνω in Rom. 8, 29, since, on the one hand, the direct object of did foreknow is the relative pronoun whom, which refers to persons and does not mean "whose faith” or whose "better conduct” He foresaw, and since, on the other, the grammatical antecedent of whom (οὕς) is the definite number of God’s saints who are "called according to His purpose,” v. 28.
The sense of v. 29, then, is: "Whom He did graciously determine beforehand according to His purpose (welche er aber zuvor- versehen hat). He also did predestinate.”
To the objection that this would constitute an inexcusable tautology (Hunnius, Philippi) we reply that this conclusion does not follow.
Even if we should take προγινώσκειν as a synonym of προσρίζειν, the sentence would not be tautological, but only progressive in thought; for it would then say: ‘‘Whom God did choose before, them also He really did predestinate,” sc., “to be conformed to the image of His Son.”
In other words, the thought would then indeed be repeated, yet not uselessly, but to connect it with the new and very important truth: "to be conformed to the image of His Son.”
However, we may distinguish between the meaning of προγινώσκειν and προσρίζειν in this manner: the first verb expresses the loving appropriation of the elect (die liebende Aneignung der Auserwaehlten); the second, their predestination to conformity to the image of His Son.
We thus distinguish in God’s eternal decree logically a twofold gracious action, namely, first, a loving appropriation of the elect and, secondly, the actual predestination of the elect, though really (sachlich) the two coincide.
The doctrine of intuitu fidei (the so-called "second form”) has no Scriptural foundation whatever, since Holy Scripture teaches directly that nothing moved God to elect His saints to salvation except His infinite grace in Christ Jesus. The reason why “the second form” was introduced into the theology of the Church was that it was regarded as necessary to explain the reason why some were chosen and others not. Its advocates decided to remove the difficulty that, if divine grace is universal (gratia universalis) and all men by nature are in equal guilt (in eadem culpa) and depend alone on divine grace for salvation (sola gratia), it is impossible to explain the mystery why some are predestinated to life and others not (particular election).
Hence the intuitu-fidei theory is intelligible only if it is taken in a synergistic sense, that is, if it is understood in the synergistic meaning that by nature not all men are in the same guilt and therefore salvation is not alone by grace.
That is indeed an explanation of the mystery of election, but one that opposes Scripture and denies the fundamental article of the Christian faith, the sola gratia. It is the same anti-Scriptural explanation concerning which Luther wrote to Erasmus: "Thou hast seized me by the throat, Iugulum meum petisti.”
It is true, not all dogmaticians who taught the intuitu fidei were synergists; but the theory lends itself so readily to the support of synergism that it should not be used by those who do not mean to be synergists.