As a Calvinist, and as already pointed out above, Vanhoozer holds to a deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty, and this definition is non-negotiable. I will demonstrate this by the terminology and explanations Vanhoozer gives throughout his writings in my different essays, but here let’s become familiar with Vanhoozer’s additional thoughts on the matter in relation to God’s love. He states,
“…the traditional model preserves a valid insight, God can be love only if he is also Lord (free, sovereign).” (FT, 87)
Note that “Lord” and “sovereign” here mean that God has determined all things. According to Vanhoozer this is required so that God does not fail at what he wants to “effect” in the world. According to Vanhoozer God had to predetermine all things so that which he wills to accomplish will not fail to be accomplished. The deterministic definition of “sovereignty” guarantees the certainty of God’s will being accomplished. Vanhoozer states that,
“…God’s love means God’s settled determination to will and to effect the good.” (FT, 87)
Here Vanhoozer is reasoning that if God has not predetermined all things, then he would not able to bring about “the good.” For now, put aside the fact that he doesn’t say anything about how God having predetermining all things also makes him the cause of all the evil in the world, rather, let’s ask why it follows that God had to predetermine “whatsoever comes to pass” according to his own will to be able“to effect” the good? It is very difficult to see how this universal divine causal determinism is required for God to accomplish his plans and purposes (i.e., the good) in the world. I thought God was free and sovereign. That could also mean that even in the midst of a world in which he has not micro-determined what happens, even in the midst of a world of free creatures that do evil, God can, in his wisdom, foreknowledge, power, etc., freely involve himself in the affairs of this world so that he accomplishes his purposes while also allowing for persons made in his image to freely involve themselves in his purposes or not as the case may be.
It should be noted that I am not saying that the human creature has an inviolable freedom. As I read the Scripture, human beings do not have absolute freedom in the sense that God cannot act determinatively upon persons. That is, God retains the prerogative to curb a person’s desires, circumscribe their actions, influence their thoughts and activity, and even claim their life for accomplishing a certain task according to his will. But Scripture is also clear that that this is not the norm. Scripture is also clear that human beings have substantial freedom and therefore are responsible and culpable for their actions before God. This biblical truth is incoherent with Calvinist determinism. The Bible supports a view of God’s sovereignty that incorporates the substantial human freedom that is obviously the prevalent and regular order of affairs. This understanding of the God / man relationship is without contradiction or incoherence.
So, on Calvinism it’s hard to see how God can be loving in a way which includes the genuinely “interpersonal” and the genuinely “relational.” If “impersonal causality” has “nothing to do with loving relations” and Vanhoozer still believes in a deterministic definition of divine sovereignty, then his enterprise of “communicative theism” based in “speech-act” philosophy of language will have to show us how it transforms his determinism or “impersonal causality” into something of the character of a genuine interpersonal and loving relation on God’s part. He will have to do this for us without making statements and assertions that are incoherent, inconsistent, or in contradiction with his theistic determinism because I take the presence of such as indications of flawed interpretation. Hopefully you do too. If he cannot perform this transformation, his endeavor will fail. I will seek to show by examples that he does fail, that is, that his statements and assertions, even given his incorporation of “speech-act” theory, are incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory.
Vanhoozer also says,
“Yet here too we need considerably more precision, for there are many types of interpersonal relationships (e.g., parent-child, friend-friend, friend-enemy). And some of these resemble their causal counterparts (e.g., master-slave). How do we know which of these interpersonal relationships are genuinely loving, and thus apt metaphors for the love of God?” (FT, 85)
My answer would be in the metaphors for God given in Scripture and the clear teaching in Scripture about the love God has and demonstrated for sinners through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the freedom and responsibility of persons to either accept in faith or reject in continued unbelief the “good news” of their salvation. But Vanhoozer’s answer to his question under the pressure to retaining his deterministic Calvinist soteriology is,
“…God’s love is of such a nature that it unilaterally creates relationships that inevitably elicit a genuine response on the part of the beloved. But that is another theological controversy.” (FT, 85)
And referring to this other “theological controversy” we find his elaboration in the following footnote.
“I refer, of course, to the notion of irresistible grace. It may also be the heart of the issue. As we have seen, Brummer’s fundamental problem with the notion of unilateral love is that it depersonalizes us by rendering us the ‘objects’ of divine manipulation.” (FT, 85 Footnote 55)
Vanhoozer introduces “irresistible grace” here and suggests that it may “be the heart of the issue.” So, in his discussion of God’s love, he tells us that it “unilaterally creates relationships.” This is another way of describing the core Calvinist doctrines of God’s sovereignty, unconditional election (i.e., predestination) and effectual calling or irresistible grace. Therefore, God’s love is “effective” only in those predestined to salvation (i.e., the elect). Love moves only from God to persons.
Now, initially with respect to the plan of salvation and salvation history this is true. God takes the initiative towards us in love and grace. The Bible is clear about this.
“For while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. For rarely will someone die for a just person—though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. How much more then, since we have now been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from wrath. For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:6-10, CSB)
And also,
“God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his one and only Son into the world so that we might live through him. Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins…We love because he first loved us.” (1 Jn. 4:9-10, 19, CSB)
But does Scripture testify that God’s love works “unilaterally” or “irresistibly” so as to “inevitably elicit” a “genuine response,” and that only for “the beloved?” For the Calvinist, whatever love is with respect to persons, God “creates” it in the elect. It’s always the case that God causes a predetermined response of reciprocal love for God for each individual God has chosen for salvation. That is what Calvinists believe. That is what Vanhoozer seems to make clear he believes.
To the contrary, Scripture tells us that God’s love doesn’t “create” love in a select few, rather, the Scriptures tell us to that God’s love is universal and motivates a reciprocal love for God from within the heart, mind, and will of the person. That is what constitutes a genuine response. Such a response is not inevitably elicited by God’s love shown to people in the death of Christ (i.e., the gospel message), for many people reject God, Christ and the “good news” of their salvation. Obviously then, such a response is up to the person to whom God is showing his love. They must be willing to humble themselves in agreement with the gospel of God and believe. Recall John saying, “We love because he first loved us.” Although reasoning that because God loved us first as we were in sin, we ought to initiate love for others just as they are as sinners too. God’s love is still not determinative of a reciprocal response. But it does provide the example and motivation to love. God’s love may elicit a response, but for it to be a genuine response it must be freely given by the one loved. Furthermore, in many people, the knowledge of God’s love elicits no response. But the explanation is not that they were not among those predestined to salvation, rather, those who are perishing “perish because they did not accept the love of the truth and so be saved.” (2 Thess. 2:10, CSB). The ESV reads “they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” Jude tells his readers to “keep yourselves in the love of God.” (Jude 21, CSB) It would be a prime example of eisegesis to explain these verses as indicating that God did not unilaterally and inevitably create a relationship with these people because he did not choose them to be saved; which just means that he does not love them. Such doctrines cannot stand the coherence test with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture to God’s universal salvific love and human freedom and responsibility regarding one’s thoughts, attitudes, actions, and belief in God and the gospel message.
Jesus himself speaks of love for him as a choice, and that love for him and from him and the Father is open to all.
“The one who has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. And the one who loves me will be loved by my Father. I also will love him and will reveal myself to him.”
“…Jesus answered, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. The one who doesn’t love me will not keep my words. The word that you hear is not mine but is from the Father who sent me.” (Jn 14:21, 23, 24, CSB)
Jesus has the right to claim love from us above all other loves. The comparison of earthly loves affirms that love for Jesus must be a response that is free.
“The one who loves a father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; the one who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Mt. 10:37, CSB)
To “an expert in the law” Jesus speaks of love to God and love of neighbor as a command. He said to him,
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.” (Mt. 22:37-40. CSB)
Now, unless we read into the text that everything Jesus teaches about love and faith has behind it the “unilateral” and “irresistible” working of God according to his all-encompassing predeterminations which have “inevitable” results, we take these texts at face value to be saying that people can and should love God and others because of God’s love and grace to us in Christ Jesus. When they hear the “good news” of their salvation, they can and should believe on Jesus. We take the text as teaching that love comes from the individual without it being “created” by God as “unilateral,” “irresistible” and “inevitable.” That predestinarian view must be imposed on the text.
In addition, we saw above that it is while we were still sinners God demonstrated his love for us in that Christ died for us. It’s a principle of Paul’s ministry to motivate those who subsequently believe to certain behaviors by pointing out what God has done for them. Regarding forgiveness Paul writes,
“And be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God also forgave you in Christ.” (Eph. 4:32, CSB)
And referring to love he states,
“Therefore, be imitators of God, as dearly loved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.” (Eph. 5:1-2, CSB)
Paul’s ministry was compelled by “the love of Christ” and a conclusion he reached because of such love.
“For the love of Christ compels us, since we have reached this conclusion, that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the one who died for them and was raised.” (2 Cor. 5:14-15, CSB)
My point is that Paul does not think in deterministic, effectual terms about the God / Man relationship, even if Vanhoozer wants to talk about it as “God-in-communicative-act.”
The Truth of the Gospel 