Given the recent discussion on Calvinism and Arminianism, I thought this would be a good time to post this guest review of Chosen For Life by Sam Storms (for which I previously offered these brief salvos). The review comes from the pen of my friend Brian Tabb (M.A. Wheaton College, 2005, and currently pursuing a Th.M. at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN):
Author Sam Storms opens his book Chosen for Life with what proves to be a defining illustration of two nineteen-year-old twin brothers, Jerry and Ed, whose family, church experience, and aversion to the gospel message are identical. However, on Easter Sunday Jerry experiences an awakening to his sinful condition and his need for a savior while Ed remains indignantly in unbelief. According to Storms, only the Calvinistic doctrine of divine election offers a satisfactory explanation for the difference between these two brothers. In chapter one, Storms contends that the crux of the age-old dispute between Calvinists and Arminians “isn’t the reality of election, or even its source, author, time, or goal … rather, [it] is the basis of divine election” (21). The determinative question is thus: “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)?
In chapter two, Storms articulates the Arminian position(s) of “conditional election.” Arminian theologians are divided as to whether the object of election is the church or individuals, but they are in agreement that God elects to salvation on the basis of his foreknowledge of faith, “a faith that all are enabled to exercise through the bestowal of prevenient grace.” (36). God’s conditional election of sinful human beings in the Arminian scheme is only feasible through this prevenient grace, in which God restores humanity’s free will that was lost in the fall of Adam. Storms’ primary critique of prevenient grace is that it is not clearly taught anywhere in Scripture and that it runs against the grain of Romans 3:10-18, where Paul insists that no one does good or seeks after God. In chapter three, he moves to address the Calvinistic view of divine election, which he defines “as that loving and merciful decision by God the Father to bestow eternal life upon some, but not all, hell-deserving sinners” (45). The basis of divine election in this view is not any act performed by humanity but rather “the sovereign good pleasure and grace of God” (44).
Storms focuses his discussion in chapter four around the nature of man and his will, and he contends forcefully that, according to Scripture, “all people are born into this life corrupt in nature and therefore ill-disposed to the gospel and to the truth” (54). He affirms that all people are free moral agents, but he specifies, “A person’s freedom consists in the ability to act according to his desires and inclinations without being compelled to do otherwise by something or someone external to himself” (60). However, Storms contends that because of the spiritual deadness brought about by sin (Eph. 2:1-2), “when confronted with the gospel, we cannot will well” (60).
In chapters five and six, Storms addresses a number of biblical texts germane to the nature of faith, repentance, and grace before returning to election. He argues that faith and repentance are not in a sinner’s power to produce, but rather gifts of God’s grace, which he defines as “treating a person without the slightest reference to desert whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God” (80). Storms contends that in the Arminian scheme “God’s grace is seriously, albeit unwittingly, compromised” as election is made contingent upon a person actions of repentance and faith the gospel (77).
The heart of Storm’s argument from Scripture comes in chapters seven through eleven, and his most exhaustive exegetical work is done in Romans 9:1- 23, to which he devotes 29 careful pages. He contends that Arminian scholars misunderstand Paul’s argument in 9:6-13 because they fail to see how the Apostle is addressing the massive problem of Israelite unbelief in the Messiah and the question that this unbelief stimulates: has God’s word failed? The basis of Paul’s answer, that Israel’s unbelief does not negate God’s word of promise, is God’s sovereign prerogative to call and elect whomever he wills. Thus, Storms writes, “Paul does not permit us to find the cause of God’s elective choice in anything other than God himself” (127, Storms’ emphasis). Further, “When God determines who shall and who shall not enjoy his blessings, be they earthly or heavenly, he does so according to his sovereign good pleasure and not according to anything in humanity” (121).
In chapter 12, Storms explains the order of salvation in the Calvinistic scheme. He makes a crucial distinction between the general (or “external”) call of God in the gospel to everyone through the indiscriminate preaching of the Word, over against the special (or “internal”) call of God by the Holy Spirit to the elect which then enables them to respond in saving faith. Storms makes clear that mankind receives and does not contribute to regeneration or new birth. Rather, “the Holy Spirit regenerates a person in order that a person may respond to the gospel” (151).
In chapters 13-14, Storms attempts to address a number of questions surrounding the doctrine of divine election, the two most poignant being: “How can God be loving?” (163-67), and “Why should we preach and pray?” (172-78). Storms answers the former question by stressing that we must not project ideals of human love onto God but must begin with the Biblical assertions of our heinous sin that offends God’s holiness that results in our spiritual deadness and necessitates a full-scale rescue operation by God. Storms writes, “I will tell you what love is. It is not providing a lifeline to drowning men who have no arms or hands with which to grasp it. It is sacrificing your only son to jump in and rescue someone by wrapping that rope around his waist and drawing him firmly but surely to the safety of the shore” (167). Storms’ response to the latter question is that God ordains both ends (such as Jerry’s salvation on Easter Sunday) and means such as prayers for his salvation and the preacher’s sermon. The Calvinistic doctrine of divine election rightly understood is not a disincentive to prayer and preaching, for “God’s command, not our curiosity, is the measure of our duty” (174). In fact, all prayer and preaching would be an ineffective waste of time without God’s electing grace that alone can give life to a spiritual corpse.
In Storms’ final chapter, he defends why the study of divine election is worth studying and heralding. His answer, in short, is that our right worship of God flows out of our view of who he is and what he does. Further, “We must learn to rejoice in that which makes [God] rejoice,” and Scriptures such as Matt. 11:26 are clear that “all three members of the holy Trinity are overwhelmed with joy over divine sovereignty in salvation” (188, 190).
This reviewer agrees with the theological conclusions espoused by Sam Storms in Chosen for Life; however, two minor points of critique may be offered in this review. First, in chapter four Storms points out that “the real point of dispute between Arminians and Calvinists is not so much the nature of God and his will but the nature of man and his will” (53). However, no Arminian theologians, to my knowledge, are quoted in this chapter and thus the reader is a bit unclear as to what exactly the position is that Storms responds to. Walls and Dongell in their critique of the Calvinist position call libertarian free will “axiomatic,” “practically unquestionable,” and “intrinsic to the very notion of moral responsibility,” and a careful response to these claims by Storms would have been quite helpful at this point. To Storms’ credit, he does later address the libertarian position in Appendix B, but it is in the midst of his critique of open theism and thus it is easy for the reader to miss the connection. Second, though it is unrealistic to expect an exhaustive treatment of objections to divine election, this reviewer would have benefited from a clear pastoral response from Storms to the questions surrounding humanity’s moral responsibility for their actions in the face of God’s unconditional election. Despite those minor critiques, Chosen for Life is to be praised for its careful and yet gracious argumentation, its theological precision and its pastoral orientation. Sam Storms engages his readers’ minds with truth about God and moves their hearts to worship God for the glory of his electing grace. For these reasons, I whole-heartedly recommend Chosen for Life for careful reflection and study.