“Divine Election Through a Straightforward and Relatable Story Involving Twin Brothers, John and James.”

Introduction: The doctrine of divine election can be fascinating and daunting, especially when exploring its implications for individual salvation and God’s sovereignty. The book “Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election” by Sam Storms provides a compelling argument for this doctrine, asserting that God’s choice in salvation is foundational to understanding His grace and sovereignty. To make this complex concept more relatable, let’s explore it through a story about twin brothers, John and James, whose lives and destinies vividly illustrate divine election and grace.

Twin Brothers Story

 John and James are twin brothers, born into a world full of opportunities and challenges yet with drastically different experiences in life. From a young age, it was clear that they were similar in many ways—both intelligent and athletic, and both loved their family deeply. However, as they grew older, their paths diverged significantly. John embraced faith and became a passionate advocate for the gospel, while James rejected spiritual matters and pursued a different path.

One day, John and James are approached by a wise, old mentor who uses their lives as an example to explain the concept of divine election. The mentor begins by drawing a parallel with the biblical account of Jacob and Esau. Just as God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born, setting the course of their destinies, John and James’ lives illustrate a similar, though less stark, reality of divine election.

John’s life was marked by events and circumstances that seemed to guide him toward faith. He experienced profound grace and conviction, leading him to embrace the gospel wholeheartedly. In contrast, James, despite having equal opportunities, found himself increasingly distant from spiritual truths, unable to respond to the same calls of grace that John received.

According to “Chosen for Life,” the mentor explains that divine election is not about favoritism but God’s sovereign choice to extend grace and mercy to whom He wills. This perspective is based on passages like Romans 9, which highlights God’s sovereignty in choosing individuals for specific purposes. It’s not about human merit or effort but God’s plan and purpose unfolding through His sovereign will.

John and James are given a deeper understanding of predestination as it relates to their own lives. The mentor reassures them that God’s choice in salvation is ultimately for His glory and the good of His creation. While John’s response to God’s call may seem like an outcome of divine favor, it’s also a testament to God’s grace and the transformative power of His Spirit. Though marked by rebellion, James’s journey does not diminish the offer of grace extended to him; instead, it underscores the complexity of human response considering divine sovereignty.

The mentor also addresses potential misunderstandings about divine election. He explains that the doctrine is not meant to diminish personal responsibility or render evangelism unnecessary. Instead, it emphasizes the role of divine grace in overcoming human resistance and opening hearts to the gospel. John, for instance, is encouraged to continue sharing his faith, not because he is inherently better but because God’s grace has equipped him to do so and because the Spirit is at work in the hearts of others.

John and James: The Challenge of Free Will and Divine Grace

In the story of John and James, we are presented with two individuals who, on the surface, may seem to have equal access to the gospel and the opportunity to respond. However, their life outcomes pose a theological challenge: John accepts Christ and is transformed, while James, despite having heard the same gospel, does not respond and remains spiritually dead.

This scenario highlights the tension between free will and divine grace. If John and James had the same opportunity to hear the gospel and possessed free will, why did one respond while the other did not? This challenge invites us to explore the role of God’s grace in salvation, mainly through the lens of biblical theology.

From a semi-Pelagian and Dr. Flower’s (provisionist) perspective, it might be said that John made the right choice, while James, for some reason, chose not to believe. Here, the emphasis is on human decision-making: John’s faith is an exercise of his free will in response to the gospel’s truth, whereas James’ failure to believe is attributed to his rejection of that truth. The opportunity for salvation was available to both, but John was more receptive, while James remained hard-hearted.

However, from a biblical perspective, the difference between John and James is not merely a matter of personal choice but of God’s sovereign grace. Reformed and biblical theology would argue that John was enabled to believe because of the work of the Holy Spirit, who regenerated his heart and opened his spiritual eyes. On the other hand, James was not given that same regenerative grace and, therefore, remained spiritually dead. According to this view, salvation is not a matter of human decision but entirely the result of God’s sovereign choice and transforming power.

Jerry and Ed: Sam Storm’s Story of Election

Sam Storm’s story of Jerry and Ed presents a similar theological challenge, but it further underscores the complexities of human responsibility and divine election. In Storm’s narrative, Jerry and Ed both live sinful lives. Yet, Jerry eventually experiences a profound conversion and embraces the gospel, while Ed, despite having heard the same message, continues in his rebellion against God and ultimately perishes in his sin.[1]

For many, the question becomes: Why did Jerry accept the gospel while Ed rejected it? What accounts for the difference in their eternal destinies if both were exposed to the same truth?[2]

Storm, drawing from Reformed theology, emphasizes the doctrine of unconditional election: Jerry’s salvation was not because of anything he did or any virtue in him but because God chose to extend saving grace to him. Ed, by contrast, was left in his state of rebellion, not because he was any worse than Jerry but because God, in His sovereignty, did not choose to extend that same saving grace to Ed. In this view, the critical difference between Jerry and Ed lies not in their response to the gospel but in God’s prior action of election and regeneration.

This narrative presents a theological challenge: the idea of divine election can seem to undermine human responsibility. Why should Ed be held accountable for rejecting the gospel if he was not given the grace to respond? Critics of this view might argue that it makes God seem arbitrary or unjust, raising questions about the fairness of divine election.

However, this story also presents an opportunity for a deeper understanding of the nature of grace and the profound mystery of God’s will. For Reformed theologians, the takeaway is that salvation is entirely of grace, leaving no room for human boasting. It underscores the biblical teaching that no one seeks after God on their own (Romans 3:10-11) and that faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). In this sense, Jerry’s conversion is a powerful demonstration of God’s mercy, while Ed’s rejection is a sobering reminder of the seriousness of sin and the justice of God.

Challenges and Opportunities: Theological Implications

The stories of John and James and Jerry and Ed present critical challenges to our understanding of salvation. The challenge arises in explaining how human responsibility interacts with divine sovereignty in both narratives. If salvation is entirely the work of God, does this mean that those who reject the gospel, like James and Ed, are not responsible for their unbelief? Both stories force us to wrestle with how God’s sovereign election works alongside the human call to repent and believe. If salvation is entirely the work of God, and if He elects whom He wills, are people like James and Ed responsible for their unbelief? How do we reconcile these two truths?

Salvation as God’s Work: The Bible teaches that salvation is God’s work from beginning to end. No one comes to faith without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44). Yet, this doesn’t negate human responsibility.

John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

God initiates the process of salvation by drawing people to Himself, and without His intervention, no one would come to Christ. Therefore, salvation is a gracious act of God, and those who are saved owe it entirely to His mercy. However, Scripture also teaches that those who are not saved are condemned for their rejection of Christ.

Human Responsibility for Unbelief: James and Ed’s rejection of the gospel does not mean they are not responsible for their unbelief. The Bible holds individuals accountable for their responses to God’s revelation. Romans 1:18-21 explains that all people are “without excuse” because God’s invisible qualities have been made known to them, but they have “suppressed the truth” by their unrighteousness.

Romans 1:18-20 – “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness... For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

In their natural state, human beings are inclined to reject God, and for this, they are culpable. The fact that they reject the gospel doesn’t alleviate their responsibility, nor does it make God unjust in condemning them.

Illustrating the Interaction of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

A helpful analogy I heard from Pastor Wayne Surface to explain this dynamic is to think of a door labeled “Whosoever will may come.” From the human side, the invitation is open to everyone. Anyone who hears the gospel is called to repent and believe. However, as one passes through the door and looks back, they might see written on the inside, “Chosen before the foundation of the world.” This illustrates the tension: from the human perspective, they chose to walk through the door, but from God’s perspective, they were chosen and called by Him.

Additionally, think of a train journey across the country. God, the sovereign captain, has decreed the train destination (salvation). Those aboard the train (humanity) are responsible for obeying the train's rules (repentance and faith). Some choose to obey, while others rebel. Yet, the train reaches its intended port because of the captain’s unalterable plan, not the passengers’ choices alone. Their actions and the captain’s authority play crucial roles, but the captain’s sovereignty overrules them.

Romans 9:15-16 – “For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

Biblical Resolution: Mystery and Trust

The Bible doesn’t resolve this tension in a way that fully satisfies our logical categories. Instead, it balances both truths: God is sovereign in electing those who will be saved (Romans 9). Humans are responsible for their choices and are called to repent and believe (Acts 2:38). The ultimate resolution is not eliminating one truth in favor of the other but acknowledging that both are fully present in Scripture, even if our finite minds cannot fully comprehend how they fit together.

Romans 11:33-36: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? ...For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.”

Fairness of Divine Election: Another challenge comes in grappling with the fairness of divine election. In Sam Storm’s story, why should Jerry receive saving grace and Ed not? Similarly, why does John believe while James does not? Critics of Reformed theology may argue that this makes God seem arbitrary, especially if salvation is not conditioned on anything in the individual.

Both narratives offer an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the mystery of God’s will. Romans 9:15-16 reminds us,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” 

These stories lead us to a place of humility, acknowledging that God’s ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9).

The Atonement: A Deeper Understanding of Divine Election

The debate surrounding the extent and efficacy of atonement is a central issue in Christian theology. This debate often revolves around the understanding of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, leading to differing perspectives, such as those of Provisionism (sometimes referred to as “Potential Atonement”) and Biblical theology (which emphasizes “Particular Redemption”). It addresses “for whom Christ died” and how His atoning work is applied to individuals.

Before diving into the various views, it’s essential to understand what the atonement means. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the reconciliation between God and humanity made possible by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. Several passages in Scripture affirm this truth:

1 Peter 2:24 – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

Isaiah 53:5-6 – “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities... the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

In both passages, the atonement is viewed as a substitutionary act where Jesus bore the punishment for sins on behalf of others. But the question arises: For whom did Christ die, and how is this atonement applied? John MacArthur and the Reformed (or Calvinistic) view understanding the atonement as a Particular Redemption. This view holds that Christ’s death was an actual atonement—effective, purposeful, and fully accomplishing what it intended. According to this position, Christ died specifically for the elect, those chosen by God from before the foundation of the world. His atonement was not just “potential” but fully realized for those God intended to save.

Essential Biblical Support for Actual Atonement:

1. John 10:14-15 – “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me... and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

   In this passage, Jesus explicitly states that He laid down His life for His sheep, a specific group of people. The implication is that His death was not for everyone indiscriminately but for a particular group—those who belong to Him.

2. John 17:9 – “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.”

   - Here, Jesus distinguishes between those He intercedes (the elect) and the rest of the world. His high priestly prayer is focused on those whom the Father has given Him, further pointing to the particularity of His mission.

3. Ephesians 5:25 – “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

   This verse emphasizes that Christ gave Himself up for the church, not for the entire world in a general sense. His atoning death is seen as an act of love specifically for His bride, the church.

From this perspective, the atonement was actual and definite. It did not merely make salvation possible; it guaranteed salvation for all whom God has chosen. This preserves the power and efficacy of Christ’s work. If Jesus died for someone, that person will inevitably come to faith and be saved.

In this understanding, God's sovereignty and election are paramount. Salvation is entirely His work, from choosing the elect (Ephesians 1:4-5) to affecting their faith through the Holy Spirit. This view maintains that if Jesus’ atonement were for all people, then His death would have failed in its purpose since not all people are saved. Therefore, the death of Christ must be understood as being specifically for those whom God intended to save, ensuring their redemption.

Provisionism and Potential Atonement

Provisionist, on the other hand, takes a different view of the atonement. Often aligned with the Arminian tradition, this perspective holds that Jesus died for all people, making salvation available to everyone. However, this atonement is only potential—meaning it becomes effective when a person exercises faith. In this view, Christ’s death made salvation possible for all but certain for none until a person believes.

Key Biblical Support for Provisionist Atonement:

1. 1 John 2:2 – “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

   Provisionists point to this verse as evidence that Jesus’ atonement was made for the entire world, not just for the elect. The term “whole world” seems to imply a broad, inclusive scope of Christ’s atonement, offering salvation to all people.

2. John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

   This well-known verse is often cited to show that God’s love and provision of salvation through Christ extends to the entire world, with salvation offered to “whoever” believes.

3. 1 Timothy 2:4 – “God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

   This verse is interpreted by Provisionists as indicating that God’s desire for salvation is universal, and that Jesus’ death provided a means for all people to be saved, though not all will choose to respond in faith.

The Role of Human Free Will:

In the Provisionist view, human free will plays a central role. Salvation is not imposed on anyone, but people are free to accept or reject Christ’s atoning sacrifice. While the atonement is provided for everyone, it is “activated” by an individual’s decision to believe. This position emphasizes that the atonement is a “provision” that must be personally received by faith.

Critique of Provisionist Potential Atonement:

John MacArthur, and others who hold to “Reformed theology,” argue that “Provisionism diminishes the power of the atonement.” If the atonement is merely potential, then Christ’s death is rendered contingent upon human action, which seems to undermine its sufficiency and effectiveness. According to the Reformed position, this view makes the “atonement less than real” for anyone until they activate it by faith. This contrasts with the understanding that “Christ’s work on the cross was a full and complete payment” for the sins of the elect, not a potential payment waiting to be claimed.

Hebrews 9:12 “He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”

In this verse, the author of Hebrews emphasizes the finality and certainty of Christ’s sacrifice. It “secured” eternal redemption, meaning it accomplished the salvation of those for whom it was intended, not merely made it possible.

The Consequences of an Unlimited Atonement:

Provisionism faces another theological challenge: If Christ’s atonement is for everyone, then why isn’t everyone saved? If the atonement is universal in scope but not in effect, then “the atonement would be limited in its power,” dependent on human decision. This raises questions about the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. If Jesus died for the sins of everyone, but not everyone is saved, does that mean His death failed to achieve its purpose? By contrast, the Reformed view of “Particular Redemption” maintains that Christ’s atonement is perfectly effective for the elect. Everyone for whom Christ died will be saved, ensuring that His death was not in vain.

Conclusion: In comparing the stories of John and James with Sam Storm’s narrative of Jerry and Ed, we see a vivid portrayal of the tension between human responsibility and divine grace. These narratives grapple with foundational questions: Is salvation initiated by human will or divine intervention? While semi-Pelagianism emphasizes human initiative and decision-making in response to the gospel, Biblical and Reformed theology asserts that salvation is entirely the result of God’s sovereign grace, not human effort.

Both perspectives engage deeply with the biblical truths that God is and merciful and that His ways are beyond human comprehension. Whether one aligns with semi-Pelagianism, Reformed theology, or Biblical, the central message remains that salvation is by grace alone. In His wisdom, God has a plan for each person that surpasses our understanding. These stories lead us to a profound reflection on the depth of God’s grace and the mysterious nature of His will in salvation.

The story of John and James further illustrates divine election, showcasing how God’s sovereignty and grace intersect with human lives. As explored in “Chosen for Life,” divine election is not about human merit but God’s sovereign choice to extend grace according to His purposes. This understanding deepens believers’ appreciation of God's grace while affirming the importance of evangelism and personal responsibility.

The difference between Provisionism and Reformed theology hinges on whether Christ’s atonement was “actual” or “potential.” The Reformed view holds that the atonement was definite and fully accomplished salvation for the elect. At the same time, Provisionism sees the atonement as making salvation possible for everyone but sure for no one until they believe. In the end, both views wrestle with the profound mystery of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, acknowledging that the atonement of Christ remains at the center of God’s redemptive plan for humanity.

Embracing the doctrine of divine election offers believers assurance in God’s sovereign plan while inspiring a renewed commitment to sharing the gospel. The story of John and James reminds us that, though God’s decisions may surpass our comprehension, His grace is abundantly available. As we navigate the complexities of divine election, we do so with humility, confidence, and a dedication to living out the gospel in a way that reflects the transformative power of God’s sovereign grace.

[1] Sam Storms, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 15.

[2] Ibid, 17.