between subject and object than merely cause/effect. Craig demonstrates the difference between cause/effect and ground/consequent relationships that clearly show God's foreknowledge of future events is not causative. He does this by suggesting that God foreknows x, because x will take place. The word because here indicates a logical, not a causal relation, one similar to that expressed in the sentence 'four is an even number because it is divisible by two.' The word because expresses a logical relation of ground and consequent. God's foreknowledge is chronologically prior to [x], but [x] is logically prior to God's foreknowledge.41 But this argument is a double-edged sword. If God foreknows x because it will take place, then is it not equally true that x will take place because God foreknows it, given the same relationship (i.e., ground/consequent) exists? In other words, the ground or basis upon which free choices are made is God's infallible foreknowledge and free human choices are the consequent. God's foreknowledge may be chronologically prior to the actualizing of a free choice, but this in no way makes his foreknowledge contingent. Otherwise, he makes decisions in the dark (cf., Eph. 1:11)! Election and the sovereignty of God demonstrate that he uses the perdition of some as a general deterrent from sin and the salvation of some as a general incentive for salvation (cf., Rom. 9:10-29). "The hardening of the ungodly demonstrates two things that a man should fear and turn to God in piety, and that thanks should be given for his mercy to God...