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 six Storms focuses on the grace of God. He says, “To say that something is done by grace is simply to say that it is done by God.” (77) I understand his point but I think he is being too specific here. A little later he will quote three men who define grace. One of those is also too specific. The quote by Louis Berkhof offered the best general notion of grace: “the free bestowal of kindness on one who has no claim to it.” (79)

Storms is trying to establish early on that grace cannot be grace if it rests in any way on human effort. I agree – but I would want to clarify a few things. For instance, he says that “to inject any human effort or contribution whatsoever is to reject divine grace.” Agreed, but I still believe that one can reject a gift of grace without diminishing the gracious nature of that gift. If God were to freely and graciously give something to me (say, a home in the Bahamas) and I rejected it that would not make his act any less an act of grace. His act being grace does not rest on how I will respond to it. On the other hand, if God told me he would give me a home in the Bahamas if I promised to call myself by his name, that would be grace mixed with human effort or contribution. It is really the latter that is in view in this chapter.

After discussing the goodness, mercy, and grace of God Storms assembles a list of ten characteristics from Scripture about God’s grace. I will list them all and will have comments on several of them.

1. Grace presupposes sin and guilt.
   I have gone back and forth on this point. On the one hand I would say grace is grace whether or not the recipient is unrighteous. If one righteous person does something good for another righteous person independent of that person’s righteousness I think we could still speak of that as an act of grace. I would argue that common grace is given to those who are sinful and guilty but it does not presuppose sin and guilt. Saving grace, on the other hand, presupposes sin and guilt for there would be no saving grace if there were nothing to save. Also, our sin and guilt certainly magnify God’s grace. His grace shines all the more gloriously when we see just how undeserving (or ill-deserving! see next point) we are.
2. Grace sees sinners as ill-deserving, not simply undeserving.
   This was a great point that will help to clarify things later. We do not stand somehow morally neutral before God. We stand as those guilty of sin and worthy of the judgment of God. God’s grace is given to people who deserve the opposite of grace.
3. “Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit… grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the face of human demerit.”
   I thought this was very compelling. The non-Calvinist notion is that God’s saving grace is extended to all who live and individuals must respond to that grace to be saved. On death a person loses the opportunity to receive saving grace, the possibility of the gift of salvation is removed from them. This means something about the grace of salvation is contingent on something on the human condition. The offer of grace is based on whether or not it is “too late” for us.
   Furthermore, if “being elect” is itself to be described as an act of God’s grace then how can any part of it rest on a human response to the gift of salvation? As I argued before I believe grace is grace regardless of how we respond to it. But can something be spoken of as grace if our response is required? If God elects me based on how I respond to his gift of salvation (the foreknowledge view of predestination) then his election of me is not an act of grace. The initial gift was by grace, the election was by what I did.
4. “Grace cannot incur a debt.”
5. “With respect to justification, grace stands opposed to works… with respect to sanctification, grace is the source of works.”
   While our justification is by grace through faith alone with nothing to do with works, our sanctification is by grace alone to produce works. Another thought, it is the grace of God that enables people to do good, it is not the right choice of people that opens the doors to God’s grace.

6. “This grace that saves is eternal because it is manifested in the historical appearance of Christ.”
   His grace has always been. It is eternal. Before the ages he had this grace for us. But it is on the cross, through Jesus Christ, that grace has been carried out.
7. “This grace is free.”
8. “Grace is sovereign.”
   One cannot speak of God as being unjust if all people do not equally receive grace in the same way. The very fact that it is grace means justice can never make any demand of it. Justice can and does make a demand of us, however, and an amazing thing about God’s grace is how it satisfies his justice.

   Would God be unjust to sovereignly save some and not others? Can God be just if he extends grace to some that he does not to others? But grace is always something free, something unmerited. Justice can demand nothing of it. Grace, on the other hand, can answer the demands of justice. God would be unjust to leave sin unpunished. God would not be unjust to exercise saving grace for some rather than for all, human notions of fairness notwithstanding.

9. “Grace is… the foundation of the means of… our election, our regeneration, our redemption, our justification…”
   Tied to what precedes, each of these things have no basis on a human act or response. But the Bible does demand a response – faith. Storms will touch on this some more in the next point but I am still hoping to see a fuller treatment of whether or not faith itself is a gift. He has talked about it some already but I’d like to see more.
10. Free does not always mean unconditional. Saving grace is unconditional, other graces might be conditional.
    Storms lists quite a few passages demonstrating this. He recognizes that this might seem to undermine everything already said about grace, but quoting Piper he says, “When God’s grace is promised based on a condition, that condition is also a work of God’s grace…” and “God graciously enables the conditions that he requires.” (82) On that last quote I would want to ask Piper if he meant that God enables the condition or if God brings it about (a similar question – does God allow or does God cause suffering?). Enabling something to happen is no guarantee that it will happen. At any rate, the argument behind this point sounds good but I am still waiting to see more Scripture to back it up. (Psalm 18 might be used to demonstrate this, but I’m saving that discussion for another time.)

The chapter closes with Storms drawing all the pieces together. Along the way we find the following statement regarding the non-Calvinist view: “By establishing the condition for election as faith, God is thereby obligated to elect all those who, by means of their now purportedly free wills, believe in the gospel of Christ.” – this is just what I was talking about earlier. This does not deny the necessity of grace, but it would seem to include in our salvation things that are not by grace. All the things leading up to salvation could be spoken of as being by grace – Christ himself, a life long enough to hear and respond to the gospel, friends and family who share the gospel, etc – but at the last the individual is saved not just by an act of God’s grace but by grace followed by a condition that he has merited.

I am now just about halfway through the chapters. In the next five chapters Storms will deal with various Scripture references that touch on sovereign election. I will probably try to pick up the pace on these chapters so my next five posts should be shorter and should go up faster.

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.

Back from a (long!) short weekend away, it’s time to tackle chapter five. Bear with me if my writing is a little substandard. I really want to get this post out today but a few weird health quirks are disturbing my concentration.

In this chapter Storms looks at two necessary components of salvation: faith and repentance. For each of these he asks whether they can be biblically spoken of as gifts from God rather than as feelings or actions originating from man’s free will.

The chapter is short but I want to take a little time to dig into some of the passages. For faith Storms presents three texts, two of which I will address. For repentance, he mentions two.

Faith

Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (ESV)

The potential significance of this passage for Calvinists is in its reference to something about salvation being the gift of God. From our English texts readers might be tempted to see the gift as a reference to either the grace of God or the faith of the believer.

Non-Calvinists might argue that the gift Paul has in mind is grace itself. Calvinists and non-Calvinists would agree that the grace of God comes from him as a free gift, that we do not earn or merit it in any way. Calvinists, on the other hand, might argue that while grace is a gift, faith is also a gift. Faith itself is something that doesn’t originate within the heart of man but is something given to us by God.

Storms digs into the Greek a little bit to point out that the gift cannot be a reference to either grace or faith but rather refers to all that Paul has in view in this passage – namely, salvation. I will not reproduce Storms’ argument from the grammar but it is sound. When Paul says that “this is not your own doing” what he has in mind is the whole of our salvation.

I was a little surprised that Storms did not back up a few verses in his discussion. If we take in a bit more of the context the case becomes more compelling:

Ephesians 2:1-10

2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (ESV)

The first part of the passage teaches that natural man is dead in his sins. This goes back to the whole discussion of total depravity. Left to ourselves we are dead and unable to make any movement toward God. If the non-Calvinist is right, God has extended prevenient grace to all people, reviving them just enough so they can respond to the free offer of salvation. If the Calvinist is right no one can respond to salvation except for those individuals who are fully regenerated, brought from death to life.

The latter seems to be what Paul has in view in verse 5. There is no indication that all people are revived and some will then respond. Rather, those who have been revived have been fully revived through complete union with Christ. This is saving work. Those who experience this are fully saved, not just revived to a point of being able to respond to the gospel.

Immediately after this Paul tells the reader that it is by grace they have been saved. The same phrase shows up again in verse 8 as Paul continues to describe what salvation does for the sinner. The picture given is of a salvation which is completely the gift of God. From first to last it is his work.

At this point it might sound like I have finally made up my mind. Indeed, I think this passage presents another compelling case for Calvinism but I am going to hold out a little longer before positioning myself on this.

At any rate, on to the next passage.

Philippians 1:29

29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, (ESV)

Paul here is encouraging the believers to be strong in the face of suffering. The things Christians must endure at the hands of non-Christians are simply evidence of their destruction and our salvation. What is more, the suffering we face is not in some sense random or chaotic but has been appointed to us by the hand of God. Thus Paul says that God has “granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should… suffer for his sake.” But suffering is not the only thing that Paul says has been granted by Christ. Belief in him is also something that has been granted.

Storms points out that the word granted that Paul uses means “to give graciously and freely.” (71) God is not simply allowing believers to experience suffering, he is the one sending it. Paul compares the suffering we receive to the salvation we receive, encouraging believers that both of these come from God. Believers know that the salvation they have received is good so they should trust that the persecution they receive will also turn out for good.

Part of what strikes me in this passage is that Paul does not have to explain what he means about believers being granted salvation. Evidently this is already enough a part of the thinking of Christians at Philippi that Paul can use it to support his point about suffering.

Repentance

2 Timothy 2:24-26

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (ESV)

Here is another place where Paul is giving instruction for believers and salvation is inserted as part of the discussion. Paul presents a list of things the Lord’s servant should demonstrate in his life. At the end of this list we are told that the Lord’s servant should be “correcting his opponents with gentleness.” The reason for this is that “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth”. As before Paul does not have to stop and unpack what this means. Elsewhere in his letters (such as Ephesians 2:1-10) he does unpack this theology, but here the believers are already grounded in this kind of thinking.

The thinking is that God is the one who leads people to repentance. Why should you be gracious to unbelievers who oppose the gospel of Christ? For one, because you do not know what God might do with their lives. He may yet give repentance to them. The word grant here is not the same one used in Philippians 1:29 though if anything this word speaks more directly of one person giving something to another. The faithful servant of Christ does not know to whom God will grant repentance so he is to treat all people as possible converts.

This is one of the important points in the discussion between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Calvinists are often characterized as trying to witness only to the elect. While some Calvinists may well use their theology to justify evangelistic laziness, those who are careful and consistent and biblical note that nowhere in the Bible is the call to evangelize ever relaxed. In his discussion on the next passage Storms will talk a little about the opposite error, those who go to great lengths to try to induce salvation without looking for the real fruits of repentance. Both errors should be avoided. As Storms will note, salvation is in the hand of God, not of men. We are called to be faithful workers of the field and God will give the growth where he will.

Acts 11:18

18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (ESV)

I was a little surprised that Storms chose to use this passage since its interpretation can be a little ambiguous. Although the Greek “grant them repentance” in this verses is essentially the same as in our previous passage the context is different. In 2 Timothy Paul is directing people how to respond to individuals and he brings individual salvation into consideration. In Acts 11:18 a larger people group is in view. Repentance is still being viewed as a gift from God, something God must give people to bring about salvation, but the point of this verse is that God has shown he will give this gift to gentiles, not just to the Jews.

The possible tricky part is that while the verse says God has granted repentance to the gentiles, we know that not all gentiles will be saved. One could then conclude that although God grants repentance to people, people can still reject what God has granted – God gives them the gift of repentance and they are then able to turn the gift down. Storms notes this objection at the end of chapter five but says he will take it up later so we will have to wait and see how he responds. His point at this time is to say that repentance and faith can be spoken of as things God gives to people, not things that originate within people. I have a few thoughts of my own about how to respond but I will hold off until Storms comes back to it.

That about covers it for chapter five. I hope this hasn’t been too painful. As I mentioned at the start of the post I haven’t quite been at full form today but hopefully my unpacking of this material has been careful and thorough enough to be helpful to others as well as to me.

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 four Storms considers the nature of man’s free will. He affirms that man does have free will but the question is what that will is free to do? The short answer is we are free to choose anything we desire to do. An unsaved person is free to choose Christ for salvation if they desire to do so.

The problem is that left to themselves no one will ever desire Christ. Scriptural evidence for this is abundant and the clearest statement of this is found in Romans 3:10-12 (Psalm 14:1-3):

Romans 3:10-12

10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.” (ESV)

Left to himself no one will seek God. We are all dead in trespasses and sins and have been so from the moment of our conception. That is not to say the unborn child in the womb commits sin but as descendants of Adam we all participate in the corruption of sin brought about through Adam. This is known as the doctrine of original sin.

The fact that none of us is able to do good, and thus none of us is able to choose Christ, is known as total depravity. The will of man is completely corrupt and has no desire for good. Thus though we are free to do what we will, what we will is always going to be evil.

Our only hope is for God to change the heart of an individual, enabling him to desire God. This has already been discussed some in previous chapters. Non-Calvinists believe in prevenient grace, grace that God gives to all people overcoming some of the effects of original sin so that all people are enabled to turn to God in faith. Prevenient grace does not completely undo original sin, people remain dead in their sins, but they are revived just enough so that they can exercise their will towards God.

The problem noted in previous posts is that this cannot be found in Scripture. The doctrine of prevenient grace makes sense but it seems to me to be missing from the Bible.

The Calvinist view of how God overcomes total depravity in people is for God to enable specific individuals to have faith in him, regenerating them so that a dead will is turned into a living will. Once regenerated and presented with the grace of Christ, that grace will be irresistible. To the person who has been made alive the beauty of God’s grace will be clearly evident and a truly alive person can do nothing but yield himself to the glory of God.

I just read a section in John Piper’s God is the Gospel that applies here:

…blinded persons consider the facts of the gospel but see no compelling spiritual beauty, no treasure, nothing supremely precious. They see facts. They may even agree that the historical facts are true. Satan surely does. But they do not have “true sense of the divine excellency of the things revealed in the Word of God, and a conviction of the truth and reality of them thence arising.”
…
Seeing this “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” is not neutral. One cannot see it and hate it. One cannot see it and reject it. If one claims to see it, only to reject it, one is “seeing” it only the way Satan sees it and wants us to see it. In that case we are still in the grip of his blinding power. No, the kind of seeing that Satan prevents is not the neutral seeing that sets you before a meal with no taste or distaste for what you see. The kind of seeing that Satan cancels and God creates is more like spiritual tasting than rational testing.
…
If you are blind, someone may persuade you that the sun is bright. But that persuasion is not what Paul is talking about [in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6] When your eyes are opened – that is, when God says, “Let there be light” – the persuasion is of a different kind. That’s what happens in the preaching of the gospel. It’s what happens when God moves with Creator power over the darkness of human hearts. John Piper, God is the Gospel, pages 62-64

As Storms notes, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean that “all people are as bad as they possibly can be.” (55) God does exercise grace and his will in the hearts of all people, restraining some from sinning as much as they might and giving good gifts and talents to all people so that all people are able to enjoy a measure of his grace. There are two sides to this grace God gives all people. First is what Storms describes as “negative or preventative. Its essential characteristic is that of restraint.” (56, emphasis his) The second is when God “bestows upon both nature and humanity manifold blessings both physical and spiritual.” (58)

I was a bit disappointed with Storms discussion of the first of these. Normally his discussions are filled with relevant Scripture passages that build a very compelling case but here arguments from Scripture were largely lacking. From our own experience we know that even lost individuals can do things we would call good. They feed the hungry, they give to victims of disaster, they help us in times of need. In the eyes of God such actions are not themselves good since “For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23). Nonetheless, they are actions that make human interaction better and more enjoyable. Christians and non-Christians alike benefit from these good acts. If the will of man is totally depraved, why are individuals capable of anything resembling goodness? The answer is common grace. This is not prevenient grace of the non-Calvinist. In common grace nothing of the will of man is elevated above the state of total depravity. People remain evil in their hearts and motivations but God keeps people from carrying out as much evil as they could. Storms says that “one of the purposes of the Spirit’s activity in our world is to impede or inhibit or curb the outward expression of the inward propensities of the sinful heart.” (57, emphasis his) In other words, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to prevent the full manifestation of individual sin.

As I mentioned, all of this fits with our own experience. The biggest challenge to the doctrine of Total Depravity is that we experience people who seem basically good. Since total depravity is (I think) clear in Scripture something else must also be at work to prevent the full manifestation of man’s depravity. Common grace is the likely answer. I agree with Storms, I think he is right, but his argument in the chapter lacks biblical evidence. He quotes a number of theologians on this issue but he never quotes the Bible. (One of Storms quotes comes from Charles Hodge. In his Systematic Theology Hodge mentions just one Bible reference for Common Grace and that reference clearly refers to the work of the Spirit to believers, not unbelievers.)

Once again, I agree with Storms and others about common grace experienced by all people. This fits with our own experience and harmonizes with what the Bible teaches. I just wish Storms had a fuller discussion about how common grace can be demonstrated biblically.

So all people are totally depraved but people are generally restrained from the full exercise of their depravity. This means no one is able to choose God unless God enables them. They can freely exercise their will but their will can never be for God. Storms presents the question this way: “Why is it that no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him? Is it because the Father prevents him from doing so? God forbid!” (60)

On this I have one point of disagreement with Storms and, for that matter, with non-Calvinist. I agree that it is sinfulness and total depravity that keeps people from being able to freely choose Christ. But I believe there are instances when God specifically ensures that people will not see or choose him. These times may be the exceptions to the general rule, but they are present in Scripture.

Consider what we find in John 12:36b-40:

John 12:36-40

36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. 37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.” (ESV)

Note verses 37-38 and 2 Corinthians 4:4-6). But either way the point seems to be that this unbelief at this time was the will of God. Thus, contra Storms, there are times when we can speak of God preventing people from coming to him.

I have mentioned before that though I am not a Calvinist I believe there are times when God enforces his will in matters of salvation. Some, like Paul, are compelled to be saved. Others, like Pharaoh, are hardened so that they will not repent and do the Lord’s will. The question is whether these sorts of instances are the exception or the rule. John 12:36-40 seems to be an exception, this is not the normal way for God to do things. Nonetheless it is an exception that cannot be overlooked. Here is one place where God does actively prevent people from seeing his truth. (Note that the quote from Isaiah is also used in Matthew 13:14-15 to explain why Jesus uses parables.)

There is quite a bit more in the chapter, including a section on Scripture references that demonstrate man’s total depravity. It is a good discussion but I will pass over it here, particularly since I am already essentially in agreement with Storms about total depravity and this post is already excessive in length. I will have a few words to say about John 6, which Storms uses in the chapter, but it is not directly related to the chapter so I will save it for its own post.

Just to summarize the biblical argument for total depravity, here are the primary passages used in the chapter: Psalm 14:2-3; Proverbs 22:15; Genesis 8:21; Psalm 58:3; Job 15:14-16;Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:3; John 3:6.

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.

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.