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 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.

[esvbible format="inline"]Amos 4:13[/esvbible]

[esvbible format="inline"]Psalm 142:1-7[/esvbible]

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.

The blog Calvin and Calvinism offers a good quote from Louis Berkhof (no, I have no idea who he is) on the love of God for all:

(Brief aside: for a Calvinist discussion that touches on this, see John Piper’s article Are There Two Wills In God?)

When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word.

I recently commented at another blog that we cannot try and think of God’s love for us as we think of our love for each other. God’s love for us is the love of a supreme being for lesser beings he has created. God loves the people he has created, I think the Bible is clear on that. God also extends salvation to all people. But God is not ultimately motivated by his love for people. He is ultimately motivated with the will to preserve and promote his own glory. His love for humanity is beneath his jealousy for himself. Love is an aspect of his glory, it does not stand alongside his glory.

The Bible is filled with evidences of this. Whether deliverance or judgment, all is done for the glory of God. In 1 Samuel 12:22< Samuel tells the people that God, for the sake of his name, will not forsake the people: "For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name’s sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself.” Consider also Psalm 79:9: “Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name’s sake!” Again in Psalm 115:1: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!” Several times in Ezekiel we read something like, “But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations…” (Ezekiel 20:9)

The New Testament is much the same, filled with words about the glory of God and that all things are done for God’s glory.

God’s chief motivation is his glory, not his love for us. Thus it is no contradiction to say that God loves humanity and yet God permits – or perhaps even ordains – that some would suffer eternally.

This does not solve the question of whether God permits or whether he determines the damnation of sinners, it simply reframes the question. Most Christians agree that some people are saved and some are not and those who are not saved will go to Hell. The Calvinist who focuses on God’s glory says that God is glorified by sovereignly determining those to whom he would show his mercy and those to whom he would show his wrath (I realize a distinction exists between single- and double-predestination, I am not touching on that here). The non-Calvinist who focuses on God’s glory says that God is glorified by sovereignly enabling all people to respond to the gospel and then offering the gospel as a free gift which sinners can receive or reject.

I am still wrestling with how to answer that question: in which way has God established that he will receive glory? I would say that we need to be careful to ensure that our answer is shaped by Scripture, not by personal preference or inclination. This reminder is mostly to the non-Calvinist, I believe our natural inclination is to say that God is glorified by giving us the ability to respond freely to him. That this is our natural response does not mean it is wrong – nor does it mean it is right. We must see what the Bible says.

So what is the answer?

A few weeks ago I wrote a brief post quoting Psalm 119:71. Little did I know that John Piper reads my blog!

Today Piper has a short post describing five ways God teaches us through affliction.

The BBC has an article about the suffering citizens went through during the struggle between the Peruvian government and the Maoist rebel group Shining Path.

The article talks about a particular valley outside of Ayacucho, Peru where bodies of civilians were dumped by soldiers who were supposed to be protecting them. Ayacucho is where I went for three weeks during the summer of 2007. While traveling around the mountains it was not uncommon to have someone point to one of the passing valleys and say, “There were bodies dumped there.” Some by the Shining Path, others by government forces.

The bloodiest periods of violence are long over now but the memory remains a deep wound for the people. All the more troubling was the rise of new Maoist groups that want to return to the ways of the Shining Path. It seems unlikely that they would ever rise to that level of power but it is not impossible.

Pray for the believers in Peru who continue to minister to those displaced by the violence. While in Ayacucho I stayed in a home on the edge of a large shanty town. The shanty area formed by people who fled to Ayacucho seeking safety in numbers. Many of them left everything while seeking safety. Pray that they and all others in Peru would hear and respond to the gospel.

Below is a video I put together after my trip. I’ve posted it before, but that post is no longer around.

Donald Miller’s book Blue Like Jazz has a lot to offer, both positive and negative. The book is written in a way that will appeal mostly to the Emergent crowd and it received an endorsement from Mr. Emergent himself, Brian McLaren, but there are elements that can be helpful to all.

In this review I will not give an overview of the book but will focus on a few specific points that I think are helpful either as a reminder to non-emergents or to highlight some of the problems with the emerging church.

To start with some of the positive points, Blue Like Jazz does offer a number of helpful words for the reader. First, throughout the book we are reminded of our need to carry out social ministry. The emerging church has been rightly criticized for focusing too much on the social gospel. Nonetheless, most of our churches fail to do as much as we should be doing. Many critics of the emerging church have recognized that people in the movement make some legitimate criticisms about traditional churches. One of those legitimate criticisms is that we are not active enough in social ministry. This is one of the things that makes the emerging church more appealing to those who want to be active in meeting physical needs. Miller reminds us that the gospel calls for believers to provide for the needy, whether they be close to home or around the world. The gospel calls for believers to do more than repent of sins, meet on Sunday, and read the Bible on Monday. One way we spread the love of God is by displaying his compassion to the world through acts of service and sacrificial giving.

Miller also does a pretty good job when he talks about the need for community. All Christians – introvert or extrovert – are called to live in community with one another. That means involving ourselves in each other’s lives, going deeper than just seeing each other in church once a week. The early church gathered together daily. Somehow we think that once or twice a week is all we need. Some of the problems in the book show up when Miller talks about what Christian love and acceptance should look like, but I will bring that up again later.

Even though Miller’s view of love is problematic, he still gives us a good reminder that we are called to love all people. Whatever the person’s faults may be, our response to them should be given in love. Miller is right that it is easy to hate someone you do not know, so one way to help us overcome hate and move to love is to get to know all kinds of people. As we do this it will also open up more opportunities to display and present the gospel.

Most emergent types have a strong dislike of the organized church. Miller is no different. Nonetheless, one of the things I liked about the book is that Miller frequently affirmed the need for and value of church. He will often take potshots and some of the stereotypical views of church, but around that he also tells us that Christians need to be attendees of, participants in, and givers to the local church.

Now on to some of the problems. Many outsiders have recognized the  tendency of emergents to revel in the crude or behavior normally considered bad form for Christians. Miller will sometimes go out of his way to point out occasions when he got together with people to smoke a pipe (tobacco, not marijuana) or to share a beer with a friend. He talked about his pot smoking friends with a wink and a smile, and almost sounded like he admired the fact that this or that person was willing to cuss. And when he talks about the hippies who perhaps loved too much or were perhaps too physical, the “perhaps” was as close as he would get to saying their behavior was wrong. Something about young adults these days (and I am one of them so I know this from my own experience) celebrates coarse language and behavior. Miller does not seem to see any intrinsic value in the behaviors themselves but highlights them simply for the fact that they were performed. He wants people to see how hip, how relevant, how liberated he is from the stuffy old ways of the past.

The biggest problem with the book was how it presented love and acceptance. As already mentioned, Miller does a good job of reminding us of our need to love all people. But for Miller love seems to mean accepting and respecting any life decision they have made. He says he prefers being with hippies rather than church people because hippies are quicker to love and to forgive. What he means without saying it is that hippies do not have any moral expectations on how people should behave whereas church people do. Miller seems to say that we should not try to lead people to change their lives. We should love them and hope that our example influences them for the better. Going back to the hippies, Miller does not seem concerned with whether or not their behavior ever changes. Since they love everyone he is happier with them then he is with church people.

Miller is right that Christians need to work on how we respond to sinners. Christians should not expect non-Christians to live like saints. Worldly people will live like worldly people. But Miller is wrong that Christians should not try to influence the behavior of others. The whole idea behind community in the New Testament was that these people would gather together to help people grow closer to Christ. If they saw someone doing something wrong, they were supposed to go up to that person and help them get out of the sin. Miller seems to think that this is okay if we are helping people become aware of the need for social ministry, but it is not okay if we are trying to help people change the way they live. But love is not love if it ignores destructive lifestyles and behaviors, and everything that is not done in obedience to God is destructive. At one point Miller says, “I wondered whether any human being could be an enemy of God.” I wonder what Miller makes of passages like Romans 5:10, Philippians 3:18, and 1 Corinthians 15:25. There are many enemies of God out there and all of their actions are destructive. It is not love that lets them go on being enemies and behaving in destructive ways.

In the end I was far more impressed with this book than I had expected to be. I thought it would be somewhat like Rob Bell’s book Sex God, full of problems from beginning to end. But while the book does have problems that causes trouble throughout, Miller also has a lot to offer his reader. The problems are serious enough that I don’t think I could recommend this book to others, but I would not be too concerned if I knew someone was reading it. Now, if they go from Miller to someone like Bell or McLaren, I might recommend they start a steady dose of Piper instead.

As Christians we believe it is important to believe the right things. As a preacher I spend a great deal of time and energy working to help people believe the right things. But that is not enough – I also want to help people do something with all of those right things they believe. It isn’t enough to think good thoughts. If we are not putting those beliefs into action then what we say is worthless. I think this is the whole point made by James in his letter – faith without works is dead. Faith is not really faith if it is not expressed in what we do.

In what we do. Not just in what we don’t do. We are people who are easily tempted, easily led into sins of commission, doing things that God has commanded us not to do. So we focus quite a bit of our attention on avoiding the bad things, of fighting temptation, of keeping away from sin. We need to. We are called to live holy lives before God and we cannot be holy in our living if we are straying or plunging into those things God tells us not to do.

But there is more to being a Christian than just avoiding bad things. There are also things we are called to go out and do in the world. We already know we are to spread the gospel. Evangelism is a core and crucial responsibility for Christians. But even evangelism is not the whole story. We are also called to help the needy, to take care of the poor and sick, to look after widows and orphans. It is here that many Christians start to fail, and fail miserably.

Part of our failure is our desire to avoid the liberalization of the gospel. Many people today try to turn Christianity into a call for social activism. Core truths of Christianity are stripped away and all that is left is politics and policies of leftist ideology. In avoiding that error, many Christians have held too tightly to the opposite extreme, ignoring the social requirements of following Christ.

We also fail because we are distracted by our fight against sin. Since it does require so much energy to fill ourselves with right thinking and avoid wrongdoing, we feel we have fulfilled the requirements of Christ when our theology is solidly biblical and when our lives show greater victory over sin. But we cannot forget Jesus’ call to tend to the poor and needy.

We have to avoid wrongdoing, but we also have to actively do right. Fight sin, study the Bible, learn good doctrine, and see that in all of that God has called us to give a cup of water to one who is thirsty, to visit those who are in prison, to tend to the sick, to clothe the needy.

We are not saved by our works, but our works will demonstrate our saving faith. Would you have the world know that you are a follower of Christ? Don’t stop at simply telling them. Show them what Christ’s love is like by demonstrating it in your own life, in the way you treat others, in the way you seek out the needy of the world. That means the whole world. America, Somalia, Burma, Sudan, Canada, Korea (both of them), and on and on.

Read Isaiah 58 to see what God is looking for from his people to show true devotion to him.