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.