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.