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.
It has been almost three weeks since I posted my comments on chapter six. In that time I have worked through five chapters of Storms’ book. As I had mentioned previously I have decided to work through these chapters together since they all deal with biblical evidences for sovereign election. In the end I found the chapters both helpful and puzzling. As with other chapters there were some places that were helpful but there were other places that posed questions without adequately answering them. In this case those questions are very important so I was a bit disappointed that they did not receive more adequate treatment. But more on that when we get to those places.
I will not be quite so thorough as I have with other chapters. I will mention all of the passages Storms addressed and I will make some comments on each but I will reserve more detailed comments for just a few of the passages.
The first two chapters are divided in roughly canonical order. The first looks at passages found in the gospels and Acts. The second looks at passages in the epistles and one in Revelation. And if one has any doubt as to where Calvinists gain quite a bit of theological support they need only look at the fact that the last three of these five chapters are dedicated to Romans 9:1-23.
Matthew 11:25-27
On this passage Storms notes that “when the Father finally makes sense to us, when we come to know him truly, to the degree that we grasp something of his nature and will and ways, it is because the Son has graciously stooped to reveal him to us.” (89) Our knowledge of the Father does not come because we finally grasp some information out there. It is not when we finally piece together in our minds the message of the gospel. It is only when Jesus himself shines the light of truth to us.
Matthew 13:10-17
For many this is one of the more troubling passages in the Bible. What can it mean that God wants to hide the truth about Christ from some people? As Storms says, “Mark’s version [Mark 4:10-13] has bothered a lot of people. They think it is intolerable to suggest that Jesus taught in parables in order to prevent outsiders from understanding, repenting, and receiving forgiveness of sins.” (90) But this misunderstands both the natural state of man and what Jesus is saying. “It is not as if these multitudes are crying out for salvation from Jesus but he hardens their hearts and refuses to receive them.” (90) Some mischaracterize Calvinists as teaching that God rejects people who are longing for him, seeking salvation. But left to themselves no one will seek after God. Left to themselves none of Jesus’ hearers would ever desire him. What Jesus is doing is keeping those spiritually blind people, those dead and rebellious people, from seeing the light that would awaken them and bring them to salvation. That has been reserved for the elect only, not for all who hear the gospel. Without this kind of work in their lives they will continue to despise and rebel against God. The question which to some degree continues to remain in my mind is why doesn’t God show this light to all? Why doesn’t God ensure that all are saved? This is addressed and answered in later passages, particularly Romans 9, but I am still wrestling a bit with the answer.
John 6:37-40, 44, 65
In my opinion this is one of the best, if not the best, demonstrations of Calvinism in the Bible. Romans 9 is certainly compelling as well, but I find John 6 even stronger. Here a few things are stated rather strongly. Storms addresses these as three impossibilities given in the text: (1) “it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to come to Christ apart from the ‘drawing’ of that person by God the Father.” (92) (2) “…it is impossible for someone whom the Father ‘draws’ not to come to him.” (92) (3) “…when a person does come through the drawing of the Father it is impossible for him or her to be cast out.” (93)
People only come when they are drawn. Everyone who is drawn will come. Everyone who comes will be accepted. The drawing cannot be seen as a general drawing of all mankind or everyone would be saved. I address this in a bit more detail in another post.
John 10:14-16, 24-30
A few quotes by Storms on this passage: “Jesus reckons as his sheep many who have not yet come to faith. Their identity as sheep is not dependent on their faith. Rather, their faith will be the result of their having been made Christ’s sheep by divine election.” (95) “Jesus grounds his confidence in the safety of his sheep in the incomparable omnipotence of his Father.” (96) “If so much as one true child of God can ever perish, Jesus has deceived us… Some may attempt to snatch them. But they cannot succeed because the Son and the Father are united in purpose and power to keep them secure.” (96) “In the final analysis, the security of our salvation is ultimately dependent on God’s character, not ours.” (97)
John 17:1-2
Jesus has authority over all people but only gives eternal life to some of them. This is in part similar to what we find in John 6. Though the Son has authority over all, a particular group has been given to the Son for the specific purpose that he would give them eternal life. These will be his people. The choice of these specific people is not based on anything the people are or have done. Quoting Jonathan Edwards, Storms says: “God, says Edwards, doesn’t choose certain people because he foresees excellence in them, but ‘he makes them excellent because he has chosen them.’” (98)
Acts 13:44-48
Storms: “How many believed? Neither more nor less than the number of those whom God had appointed to life.” (99)
This is another passage that seems to present strong evidence, if not of election then certainly of assurance. Storms takes some time to contrast non-Calvinist and Calvinist views of foreknowledge. He concludes that foreknowledge involves more than just divine omniscience. What Paul has in view is not just God’s eternal knowledge of who would choose him but rather God’s choosing of particular humans. His foreknowledge “is to forelove. That God foreknew us is but another way of saying that he set his gracious and merciful regard upon us, that he knew us from eternity past with a sovereign and distinguishing delight.” (103)
Furthermore, the events in this passage cannot be separated. Storms, quoting Gundry-Volf, notes that “Paul posits a continuity in the beneficiaries of salvation from its first manifestation in God’s eternal counsel to its final one in glorification.” (104) The events described in these verses cannot be interrupted. Once one is foreknown one will reach glorification. So those non-Calvinists who believe Christians can lose their salvation and believe that this passage refers to God’s foreknowing those who will accept him must still contend with the assurance in this passage that all those who are foreknown will ultimately be glorified. Those who have been saved cannot fall away, they will reach glorification.
1 Peter 1:1-2
My favorite quote of the book comes from this discussion: “We must be cautious about basing too much of our theology on the nuances of Greek preposition.” (106)
As already noted “God’s foreknowledge is his special delight or gracious affection with which he views us”. (105) The matter at stake with the Greek preposition is whether election and foreknowledge are simultaneous or if one precedes the other. It would seem in this passage that God’s foreknowledge precedes his election. He elects those whom he has known. Election is based on something God does – singling out certain individuals – rather than something we do.
Ephesians 1:3-6
Storms draw out four points from this passage: (1) “election is pre-temporal… To say that God chose us before the existence of all created things is to say that he chose us without regard to any created things.” (107) (2) “God chose us in order that we might be ‘holy and blameless’ in his glorious presence… the goal of election is to secure for Jesus Christ a people whose lives are characterized by purity and obedience to his will.” (108) Here I see Storms’ point but I would take it one step farther based on the text. All that God does in this passage is “to the praise of his glorious grace.” His purpose for individuals, then, is what Storms says – making us holy and blameless. But his reason for making us holy and blameless is that we might praise him. (3) God elected us in this way, by predestinating us to adoption.” (109) and (4) “we were chosen ‘in Christ’.” (109) Expanding on this Storms says, “when God elected a people form the fallen mass of humanity, he never intended to save them apart from his Son but only by means of what his Son, the Lord Jesus, would accomplish in his redemptive work.” (110)
2 Thessalonians 2:13
This was a passage that gave me some hope in my days as a convinced non-Calvinist. I acknowledged that some were decidedly saved by the will of God, but I thought Scripture left room to say that most people were saved by an exercise of free will. I thought this passage offered one defense. Here we read that the firstfruits were chosen, were decidedly saved by the will of God rather than their own will. Does that mean, then, that others who were not firstfruits would be saved by the exercise of their own free will? The first ones saved were sovereignly saved. The rest must choose salvation. Then I realized the language of firstfruits doesn’t allow this kind of reasoning.
Here is one place where I will have to disagree with Storms. In the Greek text there is a variant on the word for firstfruits. Storms believes the variant reading is correct so that the passage would read “God chose you from the beginning to be saved” rather than “God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved”. Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament notes some of the problems with this view and Storms acknowledges those problems but still believes the variant reading is the best. He says the most important reason for this is that “the Thessalonian Christians were not, in point of historical fact, the firstfruits in Macedonia. The Christians in Philippi were.” (111)
It is quite possible that I am the one missing something but I think Storms overlooks the biblical usage of firstfruits. While one can speak of firstfruits as being the first thing to come from his work – the first fruits of harvest, the first child, etc, when it is used in a religious context it always means that which is dedicated to God. I believe the use in 1 Thessalonians, then, is not a reference to people who were saved early in the ministry but is a reference to all those who have been set apart and dedicated to God. Out of all humanity who are the firstfruits? Not simply those who believed first but all those who have been dedicated to God. And if Calvinism be true, it is those dedicated to God by God. God chose his own firstfruits. God chose those that would be dedicated to him. God chose these humans to be the first fruits.
Revelation 13:8; 17:8
Storms quoting Greg Beale: “the point here is that the multitudes throughout the earth who worship the beast do so because their names ‘have not been written in the book of life.’” (113)
Romans 9:1-23
Now we are ready to tackle the three chapters on Romans 9. The post is already lengthy. I will try to move a little quicker. In doing so I will pass over some of the debates Storms spends time on. In particular I will not spend much time looking at the debate as to whether these passages refer to individuals or to corporate Israel. As these posts are primarily my own attempt to work through Calvinism I am focusing on those things that have been challenging to me. I already agree with Storms that these passages refer to individual salvation. To claim otherwise requires, in my opinion, quite a bit of manipulation of the text.
Romans 9:1-13 helps us to see that election is not based on anything humans do. In the passage Paul uses Jacob and Esau as an example. Why did God choose Jacob and not Esau? We do not know and God does not tell us. But we can know what his decision was not based on: “First, we are told that God differentiated between Jacob and Esau before their birth. Second, God differentiated between Jacob and Esau before their behavior.” His choice had nothing to do with the brothers themselves. It was not because of who they were or what they did.
There is a question about what is meant by hate in this passage. I would contend as I have before that God loves all humans who live. The love and hate being contrasted in these verses do not have any sort of emotional force but demonstrate the nature of choosing and devotion. God chose Jacob and not Esau. God brought Jacob into the eternal covenant but rejected Esau. As Storms says, “‘Love’ and ‘hate’ are not here, then, emotions that God feels but actions that he carries out.” (119) If anyone would raise a serious challenge to this interpretation then consider Luke 14:26. We are not commanded to hate our parents in terms of emotion but in terms of devotion. We are to choose God above all other things. We are to commit ourselves to God absolutely and not father, not mother, not even our own lives can take greater importance than God. In the same sense that we are to love God while hating our parents God loved Jacob while hating Esau.
The last two chapters we are considering in this post both look at Romans 9:14-23. This is one of the more challenging passages for me and Storms did not really help me reconcile the difficulty.
In this passage Paul is addressing those who would accuse God of unrighteousness. God hardens some, he shows mercy to others. He chooses Jacob and rejects Esau. And yet he uses all people for his purpose. Who is chosen and who is rejected is based on God’s sovereign good pleasure, not on anything about the individual. Pharaoh was hardened that God might be glorified so in the end even Pharaohs sin was used by God for God’s glory. Pharaoh’s sin was ordained by God so although what he did was sinful and he was responsible for it, it was nevertheless a part of God’s plan.
(Aside: We say that God’s choosing has no basis on the individual, but can one really claim this about Pharaoh? What God did with Pharaoh could not have been done with Pharaoh’s cook. It was Pharaoh’s prominence and seeming power that made his defeat by God all the more prominent. Although I suppose we could easily and rightly and biblically extend God’s actions a great distance – God rejected this individual for salvation before the foundation of the world and set him aside to be hardened. God then raised him up to be Pharaoh in order to display his glory through him. Would he ever have been Pharaoh had God not ordained him for this role? Romans 13:1 might speak to that.)
That being the case, how could anyone be held responsible for their sins? Storms presents the question this way: “If a person’s hardness of heart is the work of a sovereign God, it is unrighteous and unfair for God to condemn the individual or to hold him accountable for his resistance to God’s commands… If God hardens the human heart, on what basis does he still hold the person morally accountable for his sin?” (129-130)
An excellent question but one which Storms does not answer. He presents what seems to him to be the solution but I believe it only highlights the problem. Storms’ answer is found in recognizing two wills in God: God’s will of precept and his will of decree. God issues commands to humans about how we should act and behave. Those are his preceptive will. But behind that God has his will of decree where he shapes what will be. In his will of decree there will be times that he ordains actions that are forbidden in his preceptive will. I have mentioned a few times before John Piper’s discussion on this: Are There Two Wills in God? Piper had me convinced and Storms only reinforces that. It certainly seems evident that God is not just motivated by a desire to save people. Something more is at work. I believe even the non-Calvinist must acknowledge this. Scripture tells us that God desires for all people to be saved, and yet all people are not saved. Either God is unable to ensure the salvation of all or he is unwilling to enforce the salvation of all. I believe – and most Bible believing Christians would agree – that the latter is the case. The question is why isn’t God willing to enforce the salvation of all? Non-Calvinists would say it is because he respects and honors free will even more. He is not just looking for people to follow him, he is looking for people who will follow him based on their own free choice of him. Therefore God’s will to respect human free will is greater than his will that all be saved. The Calvinist would say something like God seeks his glory above all else and somehow is glorified more by some being saved and some judged than if all were saved.
Storms offers a quote by Wayne Grudem that summarizes this well: “Reformed theologians say that God deems his own glory more important than saving everyone, and that (according to Rom. 9) God’s glory is also furthered by the fact that some are not saved. Arminian theologians also say that something else is more important to God than the salvation of all people, namely, the preservation of man’s free will. So in a Reformed system God’s highest value is his own glory, and in an Arminian system God’s highest value is the free will of man.” (135)
All of this is presented by Storms to answer the question of how God can still hold man responsible. I do not see how it answers the question. It only makes the question all the more puzzling. There are two wills in God and his higher will, by which all things are shaped and guided, does at times ordain that sin take place. How does that answer the original question? I want to know why man is still held responsible. Storms answers that man is still responsible because God has two wills. I don’t find the answer satisfactory.
Nonetheless I believe there is a satisfactory answer. I am just not yet to the point of being able to understand it.
Paul presents his version of the answer in Romans 9. Storms addresses this in the last chapter we are considering in this post. Paul’s answer is that humans have no right to accuse God of unrighteousness. God is the potter and we are the clay. Clay has no rights to make any accusations against the potter. The potter is free to do as he wishes with the clay he shapes. Thus God is free to do with us as he will and who are we to challenge him on it? In many ways this should bring Job to mind. There God himself says to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” (Job 38:4) We are not God. We do not have his view of his creation. How could we possibly accuse him of unrighteousness when all we see is our little corner of things – and even that corner we cannot see well? All we can do is trust in God. So if I never get a better answer to my question I must rest with this – God’s will is best and all I can do is trust him.
Well, there was a lot more in these chapters but this post is far too long as it is. I will leave it to the reader to grab a copy of the book and dig through all the details I have left out in this post. Next time I will look at chapter twelve where Storms addresses the order of salvation.
Subscribe to feed
