Have you ever noticed that when you learn a new word you will suddenly start to hear that word used a lot more often than before you knew the word? Most likely the word was always used but when you did not know it you ignored it.

A similar sort of thing can happen with Bible reading. You can read Scripture over and over and yet many details will simply be overlooked or not given their full significance.

As I continue to wrestle with Calvinism and other related notions part of what I have come to see more and more is just how much God orchestrates the events of the world. When it comes to the Old Testament prophets, God spoke to them of many future events. But he did not just look ahead, see what would happen, then told the prophets about the future; he told the prophets what he was going to do with the future. See how this is revealed in Matthew 2:13-23:

Matthew 2:13-23 (Listen)

13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

19 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” 21 And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. 23 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (ESV)

Note all of the events that are orchestrated by God to bring about the end he desired:

• Vv 13-15: Herod sought to kill Jesus but Joseph was warned in a dream and fled to Egypt. The end of verse 15 says this is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. Note the wording: “This was to fulfill…” The reason it happened was because God said it would happen.
• Vv 16-18: Herod’s method of eliminating Jesus was to kill all male children in Bethlehem. The wording in v17 is a little different than what we find in v15: “Then was fulfilled…” Possibly this was just the writer varying his language a little, but one could argue that here at least God did not orchestrate Herod’s specific action but spoke through the prophets what Herod would do. I lean toward the former view - the same meaning is in mind here as in v15, the writer is just putting it a little different. It already seems clear from 13-15 that God orchestrated Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus. The question is whether or not God orchestrated this specific way for Herod to attempt what God had planned.
• Vv 19-23: Even after Herod’s death Jesus and his earthly family could not safely return to Bethlehem. They left Egypt but went to Nazareth. In v23 we again find a purpose statement: “…that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled…” The brutal reign of Archelaus, which required Joseph to avoid Bethlehem, and Joseph’s choice of Nazareth were events orchestrated by God.

This is an unusual way of approaching Scripture and I am still wrestling with this a bit. To present the question from this passage bluntly: did God plan for Herod to massacre baby boys? Did God place a brutal tyrant in authority because the man was a brutal tyrant?

But let me turn the question another way. The people that suffered under these horrible circumstances, would it have comforted them to know that their suffering was being used by God to bring about the hope of salvation for the world? Would they have endured better if they realized that the events of their suffering were part of God’s redemptive plan for humanity?

And to make the question a little more personal. Am I willing for God do to with me whatever he wishes if it means accomplishing his will? Am I willing to suffer for the glory of God?

Matthew 1:1-17 (Listen)

1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, 4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king.

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations. (ESV)

I will not likely keep this up every day, but from time to time I will post something on my gospel reading for the day. Today’s reading starts me off in the gospels and comes from Matthew 1:1-17. This is the first of two genealogies of Jesus found in the New Testament. The second is in Luke 3:23-37. These genealogies differ from each other. Some think Matthew presents Jesus’ ancestry through Joseph while Luke presents it through Mary. (Don’t miss Luke’s comment in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was the son “as was supposed” of Joseph, Luke saying that someone other than Joseph was the father of Jesus.)

In verse 1 Matthew gives three titles for Jesus. First, he is the Christ. Second, the son of David. Third, the son of Abraham. The last establishes him as a member of the Jewish race. He does not come to the Jews as an outsider. The second establishes him in the royal line of David. By itself that might not mean much - David had many descendants - but it becomes more significant with the first title. He is called the Christ, the anointed one. From the start Matthew is making clear that he believes Jesus is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. God promised through the prophets that a king would come from the line of David who would establish an eternal throne and would rule over the world. He would establish justice and righteousness and would forgive the sins of his people. The genealogy reinforces the ancestry claims, showing just how Jesus has descended from Abraham and David.

The genealogy is representative rather than comprehensive. Several generations are skipped, but in such genealogies the phrase “father of” could mean “ancestor of” so the reader would know, for example, that Josiah was the grandfather of Jechoniah, not his actual father.

The genealogies can be a bit difficult for modern readers to work through. I admit that I have skimmed through more than a few of them when I come across them. And yet if nothing else these records remind us of the faithfulness of God to his people and his power to accomplish his will. If you scan the names of a genealogy your eyes will take you through hundreds or thousands of years of Israelite history, through good times and bad. The record in Matthew begins with faithful Abraham and includes people like Boaz, the kinsman redeemer of Ruth; Rahab, the prostitute who protected the spies sent by Joshua; David, the king who inaugurated the golden age of Israelite history; Manasseh, one of the most wicked kings Israel had ever seen (2 Chron 33:9) who God nevertheless finally turned to himself (2 Chron 33:11-13, 2 Chron 33:23); Jechoniah, who ruled Judah for three months and was on the throne when Nebuchadnezzar captured and pillaged Jerusalem (the final destruction of Jerusalem would happen under King Zedakiah); and Joseph, a humble carpenter who is faithful to the Lord.

Through all of those events God was faithful to his people. Through the most famous of them to the most obscure God was working out his promises. Only a small handful of those people would have had even the slightest notion of what God was going to do through one of their descendants. A number of those names belong to tyrants who were not interested in serving God to begin with - God used them anyway. God is faithful and God will accomplish his plan, whether we cooperate or not.

This post is part of my series Blogging Calvinism in which I blog my thoughts and reaction to Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election by Sam Storms.

In chapter three Sam Storms presents the Calvinist’s view of election. Some of what he presents in this chapter is not unique to Calvinists. Many of the beliefs he describes in the section on the goals of divine election are also held by many non-Calvinists. Storms acknowledges this when he says “I am sure many Arminians agree with much that I’ve said to this point.” (43) This section addresses the question of what is God’s ultimate goal in election. The ultimate goal is that God be glorified. “…Election has the glory of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as its ultimate focus.” (42) Through salvation individuals become aware of God’s glory and they begin to desire more and more of him: “God’s shining of his light into the soul doesn’t merely awaken us to the existence or reality of spiritual things, of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit. It shows the excellency and glory and beauty of such things and imparts a new taste for them.” (42-43)

I know many non-Calvinists who are bothered by the notion that God is ultimately motivated by a desire to promote his own glory. The alternative is usually to say that God is ultimately motivated by his love. Love is always expressed to someone else, so God is motivated by his love for his creation. He created us, some say, because love needs an object. He loves us and because of that love he does what he does. I understand this view but more and more I disagree with it. First, God’s love is ultimately expressed to himself. This is at the heart of the Trinity, with the members of the trinity loving each other (St. Augustine has described the Trinity as God the Father and God the Son loving each other with God the Holy Spirit being the love that goes back and forth between them.). God’s love finds an object in himself without that love being entirely self-focused. The oneness of the Trinity means it is self-focused in one sense but the threeness means it is not self-focused in another sense. I continue to argue that God does not love humans in quite the same way that he loves himself. As the highest being that exists he is the one most worthy of love and adoration. To love anything more than God is idolatry, and God is not guilty of idolatry. (Those who hear a little of John Piper in this, you are correct, particularly since my wife and I are presently reading Desiring God together.) The second reason I disagree is that in the Bible whenever we find God doing something if any sort of purpose is expressed the purpose is always his glory. God’s love is clearly expressed in the Bible but I don’t think it is ever given as the reason why he acts. Showing love to people is what God does; for his glory is why God does it. The ultimate way God has shown his love has been through the cross, and through the cross he was glorified.

The distinctives of Calvinism are discussed in the beginning and ending of the chapter (before the biographical sketch of John Calvin). The primary difference is that “God saves men and women in accordance with a plan formulated in eternity past.” (39) Non-Calvinists could say this but would mean something totally different than the Calvinist. What non-Calvinists cannot say is that “the distinction in humanity between those who believe and those who don’t… is ultimately God’s doing.” (40) God’s choice was not based on any merit of the one chosen: “…there was nothing particular in you differing from any other person that moved God to deal thus peculiarly by you: you were as unworthy to be set by as thousands of others that are not regarded of God…” (43, quoting Edwards) But the work of God “was neither random nor haphazard… He knew what he was doing when he chose one by not another.” (40) Mankind cannot know why God chooses this person and not that person, but we can know that God had a reason that did not rest on the merits of the individual. As far as the individual is concerned, God’s election of him is simply a matter of grace.

Storms says that “if election is according to God’s sovereign good pleasure, then God is glad he chose some and not all. It pleased him to choose some for salvation out from among the masses of hell-deserving sinners.” (40) I want to tweak this a bit to highlight the part that tends to be the most distasteful to non-Calvinists. Storms is saying that God is glad to choose to save some while sending the rest to Hell. Ultimately, God is glad that these go to Heaven while those go to Hell. I am still working to see what about this would be pleasing to God. I would agree with Storms and other Calvinists that the greatest surprise is that God would choose to save any. It is only by the amazing grace of God that anyone is saved from the fires of Hell. We all deserve Hell. Nothing in any way obligates God to save anyone. But if God is pleased to save some, why would God not be pleased to save others? Why is he pleased to send many to Hell? It looks like Storms will take up this question, but I will have to wait: “I’ll return to this point in the final chapter when I address the question of why God did not choose all.” (41)

At one point in the chapter Storms gives a response to the foreknowledge view of election. He says:

Were election to be based upon what God foreknows that each individual will do with the gospel, it would be an empty and altogether futile act. For what does God see in us, apart from his grace? He sees only corruption, ill will, and a pervasive depravity of heart and soul that serve only to evoke his displeasure and wrath.” (44, emphasis mine)

Since we are totally depraved God would see nothing but depravity in us. The non-Calvinist view of prevenient grace would be one way that God could see something other than depravity in us, but as I mentioned in my notes for chapter two, I do not know where prevenient grace is to be found in the Bible. When I first joined a Southern Baptist church the then campus minister of RUF at MSU (Brian Habig) put my Calvinism to a brief test. He knew I was leaving the PCA church over the issue of Baptism but I guess he wanted to see if my Calvinism were at risk (evidently a justifiable concern since I eventually shifted on Calvinism as well). In the discussion he reminded me of Ephesians 2:1-10 in which Paul describes human beings as being dead in their trespasses and sins. There is no hint here that God injects a little life into humans. We are dead. Unable to move, unable to choose, unable to do good.

Storms continues to show what I think is a very even hand in his treatment of non-Calvinists. He is careful to remind the reader that “neither Arminians nor Calvinists believe what they do about divine election simply because of something said by the men from whom the labels have come. Arminians believe in conditional election because they believe that is what the Bible teaches. Calvinists believe in unconditional election for the same reason.” (45) Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree on what the Bible says but both groups have many individuals that uphold a very high view of Scripture. (Both groups also have people who do not hold the Bible very high at all.) Neither side is being loose with the Bible but both are trying to find the correct meaning of the biblical text. The question is what do we actually find taught in the Bible.

Similar to the chapter on Arminianism, the chapter on Calvinism closes with a sketch of the man for whom the position is named: John Calvin. As before I won’t discuss this section but it is well worth reading.

My daughter is in the room with me, browsing my bookcases. She grabbed a random book and asked if I would read it to her. I took a look at my copy of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief and said, “Well, if you want I will read it, but it is a really boring book! I even get bored with this book!” She replied, “I won’t get bored and I really want to read it!” So I started reading. A paragraph and a half later she grabs the book and says, “I know it doesn’t have pictures and I know I am bored but I just really want to read it myself.” After a few seconds of scanning the pages she threw the book aside and said, “That is a bored book!”

I have just finished my six-month trek through the Bible and am about to set off through it again. Last time around my reading plan was somewhat haphazard. This time I have organized it a little better. I have not yet decided how long I will take to read through the Bible this time, but here is the order I will go. Each day I will have readings from: The Old Testament, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the New Testament. This last time around I also read through Romans each month, following the advice of Martin Luther. At this time I don’t plan to do that with this plan, though I may change my mind and add either it or Hebrews later.

In the New Testament I am following the canonical order, but I am changing things up a little for the Old Testament. Below is the order I will follow:

Ecclesiastes
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy 31-34
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
Job
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
Song of Solomon
1 Kings
2 Kings
Deuteronomy 1-30
Jonah
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Proverbs
Ezekiel
Daniel
Esther
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

This is roughly chronological, with some exceptions. I begin with Ecclesiastes, it seems good to start my trip through the Bible with a reminder to fear God and keep his commandments. The other poetic and wisdom books (except Psalms which I will read each day) - Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Job, are interspersed throughout the plan. I have split up Deuteronomy. The last acts of Moses are kept at the end of the Pentateuch reading but I have moved the bulk of Deuteronomy to just before the period when the prophets start to foretell judgment on Israel. In Deuteronomy Moses recalls for the people all that the Lord has done for them and warns them that judgment will come if they stray. That judgment is fulfilled during the time of the prophets so Deuteronomy will be a good lead-in. I could have shuffled around 1 and 2 Chron but the books were written for the people of Judah that were returning from exile. It reminded them of God’s promise to his people and how the people had violated the requirements of God, resulting in exile. On the whole the focus is on the faithfulness of God. The people may have been crushed during exile, but God will keep his promises to them, primarily the Messianic prophecies through the descendants of David.

Once again I will use the Bible reading module of Logos Bible Software to keep track of my daily reading. I occasionally read the text straight from Logos but I usually prefer to read it in my print copy where I can underline and jot little notes. I always do my reading from the ESV simply as a matter of preference. On the whole it is a great translation that communicates the meaning of the Bible without doing too much fiddling with the text. Some fiddling is necessary at times to bring ancient notions into modern language and culture but too much fiddling runs the risk of distorting the original meaning of the text. The ESV translators have struck a good balance that keeps the translation “essentially literal”.

This post is part of my series Blogging Calvinism in which I blog my thoughts and reaction to Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election by Sam Storms.

In chapter two Storms takes a look at the Arminian concept of election. As in chapter one I would have preferred for him to speak of the non-Calvinist concept of election. Most of the content of this chapter applies to most non-Calvinists, not just Arminians. On many issues most Southern Baptists are Arminian in their theology, but one particular point of difference stands out - whether or not believers persevere. This point only received brief discussion in this chapter. Arminians believe that it is possible for a Christian to “fall away”, to lose his salvation, to reject Christ and thus to require salvation once more. Most non-Calvinists I know agree with Calvinists that once a person is saved, he is secure and nothing will cause him to lose his salvation. Storms briefly addresses Arminius’s own (somewhat convoluted) view that a Christian can lose his salvation.

In this chapter Storms does a good job of presenting non-Calvinist soteriology. He begins by making a distinction between those who believe in a kind of class election and those who believe in individual election. Most non-Calvinists fall into the latter category so it receives the most attention.

Some have accused non-Calvinists of teaching a works-based salvation since in non-Calvinist soteriology the individual must do something on his own (accept Christ by faith) in order to be saved. Storms points out, however, that non-Calvinists believe “we must not think of [the saved individual] as performing meritorious works of righteousness, because the conditions are sovereignly and graciously established by God. Since man did not deserve to have these conditions made available to him whereby he might be saved, the election which results from his meeting those conditions remains wholly of grace.” (26)

Since non-Calvinists believe salvation must be accepted by free choice, non-Calvinists see election as a matter of God’s foreknowledge. God is outside of time and can see all of time, including every decision each person will make. That being the case, he knows who it is that will eventually and finally accept his gift of salvation. Those individuals are then elected by God on the basis of their choice. In Calvinist theology election has nothing to do with the choice of the individual. The foreknowledge view is one I have never quite understood. It seems to do much more with Romans 8:29 than is intended in the passage. (A similar problem occurs with non-Calvinist views of prevenient grace, more on that later.) I have not known what to make of election and predestination in the Bible. For me this has been a case of, “I don’t know what it is, but I know what it isn’t!”

Another accusation often made against non-Calvinists is that they violate the sovereignty of God. But Storms quotes Jack Cottrell saying, “it was God’s sovereign choice to bring into existence a universe inhabited by free-willed creatures whose decisions would to some extent determine the total picture… it was God alone who sovereignly imposed the conditions.” (27) God, being sovereign, can sovereignly choose to give free will to man. It seems to me that it is Calvinists who limit God’s sovereignty when they say there is something he cannot do - namely, that God cannot give free will to man and still remain sovereign.

Most Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that mankind is utterly fallen and can do no good. We generally agree about total depravity. Left to themselves, no one is able to choose God. But non-Calvinists believe in prevenient grace, that God has extended grace to all people so that all are enabled to respond to God. Since all humans are fallen, none can do good. Accepting Christ is a good act, so fallen people cannot accept Christ. But according to non-Calvinists, God has graciously enabled all people to be capable of responding to saving grace. No one is forced to respond, and no one is kept from responding.

On that last point I have tended to differ with non-Calvinists. As Storms says, non-Calvinists have often criticized Calvinists for teaching that God treats different people in different ways. In Calvinist theology, some are enabled to believe, others are not. But non-Calvinists tend to respond that “God is not sovereignly free to do for one sinner what he declines to do for another. He must do the same for both, or he is not just and righteous.” (28) The problem with that is there are several specific and obvious exceptions in the Bible. Pharaoh of the exodus; Jacob and Esau; even the apostle Paul. With these individuals God clearly did regarding his choice and their salvation that he did not do for others. The question that remains with me is whether these cases are normative or exceptional. In other words, is it always the case that God either enables individuals to believe or ensures they do not believe, or are these instances rare exceptions?

Storms goes on to address prevenient grace in greater detail. Again, this is the view that God gives grace to all people which enables them to respond to him. This grace does not totally overcome the Fall - people are still incapable of most good - but it allows people to respond to salvation. This has been my view, but recently I have seen reason to question it. Storms lists five problems with prevenient grace, and the second is the main problem: where do you find prevenient grace taught in Scripture? As a logical system, non-Calvinist theology makes sense, respecting the biblical fact that all people are fallen sinners incapable of doing good, but proposing that God has given them just enough grace that they can respond to him. But I cannot find a biblical case for prevenient grace. Storms says that some use John 1:9, but as with Romans 8:29 this is doing far more with the text than the text appears to allow.

In his third criticism Storms says, “would not this view give man something of which he may boast?” (30) I would always argue No. Storms notes that non-Calvinists say prevenient grace leaves no cause for boasting but only for rejoicing in God’s grace but Storms believes it would still allow individuals to boast in their clever choice. But salvation is a gift, and like all gifts praise for that gift can only go to the giver. If someone offers you a gift and you accept it everyone would think you a bit daft if you turned around and boasted about how smart you were to accept the gift. No, all praise goes to the giver.

Next Storms discusses the non-Calvinist view of God’s will. Most people I know would balk at the notion of two wills in God, but I think Calvinists and non-Calvinist alike must think in these terms. [some] Calvinists and [all] non-Calvinists agree that God loves everyone and desires that all be saved. [most] Calvinists and [most] non-Calvinists also agree that not everyone is saved. That being the case, some other desire of God’s must be at work since his desire that all be saved does not come about. (I have linked to this before, but Piper has an excellent discussion of the Calvinist view of two wills in God.)

Borrowing from Thomas Oden Storms says non-Calvinists distinguish between God’s antecedent will and his consequent will. “God’s antecedent will… is that all be saved… God’s consequent will… is that those who embrace the gospel in faith shall be saved whereas those who reject it shall be lost.” (31-32) This is a good distinction to make. It recognizes that God’s will for all to be saved is not frustrated but is in some sense superseded by another will of God, his will that people receive salvation freely rather than in some sense coercively. Calvinist theology teaches that God’s will for all to be saved is superseded by his will that only those chosen by him will be saved.

The question remaining is why God supersedes his will for all to be saved. Why doesn’t he just save everyone? Storms has not yet (and might not) addressed that question for either the Calvinist or the non-Calvinist. Piper has answered for the Calvinist by saying God acts in such a way (choosing those who will be saved) in order to greater display his glory. Some non-Calvinists have answered that people cannot truly love God by coercion, that the only way to really have love and faith in God is to give it by free choice. I lean toward the latter option, with a slight tweak that incorporates a little Piper. I believe God acts primarily for his own glory. Thus the latter option should be tweaked to say that God does not ensure the salvation of all because God is most glorified when people freely respond to the offer of the gospel. In their free will some accept the gospel, and God is glorified. In their free will others reject the gospel (but how is God glorified? Is he in this case?). I am still wrestling with this question but Piper and other Calvinists have not yet convinced me. (I previously talked about this in Love and Glory.)

There is more in this chapter, mostly on the history of James Arminius and the rise of Arminianism. It is interesting and educational, but I won’t cover it here. Next time I will look at chapter three where Storms presents the Calvinist view of election.

This post is part of my series Blogging Calvinism in which I blog my thoughts and reaction to Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election by Sam Storms.

Many resources exist for studying Calvinist and non-Calvinist arguments. I’ve read a number of things coming from both sides, and at different times I’ve been on each side of the issue. I was raised in a Presbyterian church and could argue for Calvinism since I was a wee lad. In college I switched to the Southern Baptist denomination but continued to be in the Calvinist camp. Somewhere along the way I changed my mind and joined the non-Calvinist camp. Eventually I even grew quite hostile to Calvinism. Now I am back in a confused position, wrestling with the issue. John Piper is mostly to blame, I have really appreciated his ministry and he has nudged me back to re-consider Calvinism. This book, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election by Sam Storms is one of the sources I am using for study.

(Note: Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church have put together a helpful pamphlet on Calvinism, available free or for purchase.)

As I read the book I plan to blog my reactions, chapter by chapter. I hope that this will be an honest look at the book and at my response to arguments in favor of Calvinism. I also hope that this will help me to make up my mind once and for all, one way or another. Hopefully I will blog the whole book. I do have a nasty habit of starting a series of entries and never quite finishing it (my never ending but finally halted series on the Evangelical Manifesto, anyone?) Either way, I will work through the book and I can guarantee that I will at least post comments on chapter one.

Enough of that, now on with it!

Chapter one is quite brief. In the chapter Storms sets up what the discussion is all about and what are the sides in the debate. He articulates well the two basic biblical positions, though his labels could use a little work.

On the one side there is Calvinism, the system of theology that teaches “God has elected some who are bad who, because of their being bad, are not of themselves able to exercise faith in Christ. It is on the basis of his own sovereign good pleasure that God elects them. (22) On the other side are the non-Calvinists. This is how I would label them – Storms refers only to Calvinism and Arminianism. It always puzzles me why many Calvinists will not recognize that a wide range exists between the two. There are a lot of non-Calvinists who are also not Arminians. (Storms hints at a third option toward the end of the chapter when he asks whether there might be a mediating option between Calvinism and Arminianism. I will be interested to see his thoughts about this middle ground.) Storms’ definition of Arminians applies to all non-Calvinists, it is general enough that it does not touch on the areas where people like me disagree with Arminians. Non-Calvinists, then, are people who believe “God has elected some who are bad who, notwithstanding their being bad, chose to exercise faith in Jesus Christ. It is on the basis of this foreseen faith that God elects them.” (22, emphasis in original)

Storms also gives a one sentence summary of the debate: “The question reduces to this: Does God elect people because they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, or does God elect people in order that they shall believe in Christ?” (22, emphasis in original)

Although I will quibble with Storms about referring only to Calvinists and Arminians, so far it looks like this will be a fair book. He acknowledges that some people on each side of the issue have had the tendency to mischaracterize the views held by the other side. Both sides have people who have displayed unhelpful, unbiblical hostility to those on the other side. So far it looks as though Storms will avoid repeating this mistake. (One example, Storms makes a point of noting that Pelagianism is rarely found in the church. Calvinists will at times accuse non-Calvinists of being Pelagians; Storms would disagree. We will see whether or not semi-Pelagianism enters the discussion later on.) 

I look forward to continuing my reading of this book. Either way, it will be a good study.

I don’t really believe that John Piper reads my blog, but the timing of his post is perfect… A few people have contacted me about my last blog entry so I am going back and thinking through it again, but here is Piper on the subject of God’s love and God’s glory.

Why It Matters That God Does Everything for His Own Glory

From the entry:

God loves us not in a way that makes us supreme, but makes himself supreme. Heaven will not be a hall of mirrors but an increasing vision of infinite greatness. Getting to heaven and finding that we are supreme would be the ultimate let down.

The greatest love makes sure that God does everything in such a way as to uphold and magnify his own supremacy so that when we get there we have something to increase our joy forever—God’s glory.