The question that Vanhoozer’s endeavor raises is whether God is “constituting and consummating his human character” in the sense that the young man’s present response and eternal destiny is predetermined by God? If Vanhoozer means to say that what Jesus does with this rich, young ruler is “the basis of this human creature’s freedom and answerability” in that Jesus opens up before him the way to know and experience true personal freedom and that the young man must make an “answer” to Jesus, I can agree. But can Vanhoozer possibly mean this given his doctrines of an “effectual call,” unconditional election, and his Reformed Calvinist determinism? Does God “constitute and consummate” the young man’s eternal destiny according to the Calvinist deterministic soteriological doctrines (i.e., TULIP), or does the young man choose his own destiny even though personally confronted by Jesus, the Word of God? I submit that it is the latter because that is the only context in which this passage and myriads of other passages remain rationally coherent. Let’s examine the passage in Mark 10:17-31 (cf. Matt. 19:16-30; Lu. 18:18-30).
There certainly is an “interrogation” that occurs. The word of God comes to the rich, young, ruler and it is a clear word, “…sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, and follow me.” (Mk. 10:21, ESV) Yes, Jesus’ words are “authorial” in that they reveal the truth to the young man about his greatest hindrance to gaining eternal life and circumscribe the boundaries and necessary response he must make to obtain the eternal life he seeks. Jesus does not accommodate the way to eternal life to the rich, young ruler’s religious scheme of “what good deed” he could do to be assured of gaining eternal life. Jesus’ point lies in reversing the young man’s mindset as to how salvation is obtained, which already leans away from any interpretation that the young man’s eternal destiny is predestined by God. For this young man and for the Jews as the people of God, their salvation was bound up in obeying the Law of God, given to them as the people of God, by God’s grace. To them alone the grace of God came in the giving of the Law. The one true God, God’s grace, and the Law as the means to obtain and remain in that grace (not earn it), are theirs alone as the elect “people of God.” But eternal life was not found in the keeping of the Law and the commandments, but in what the law taught the Jew about God’s grace and the response of faith and trust which is what God required (Gen. 15:6). Hence the law is good, but not for the saving of the soul through obedience to it but in revealing our sin so that we flee to God’s grace and Christ for salvation. (Rom. 3, 4, et al.) The law does not offer eternal life. But the fuller purpose of God’s promises to Israel and the giving of the Law were over time distorted, the salvation that always was a matter of faith in God became exclusive and meritorious. This young man’s relationship with God was based on him keeping the law and his belief that he has done very well in this regard. Hence, his question “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (Matt. 9:16, ESV) The CSB has “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?” So, Jesus first reorients the young man away form his own goodness or good deeds to his God, who alone is good. “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” (Matt. 18:17, ESV) Mark has “No one is good except God alone.” (10:17, ESV) Now, by Jesus’ statement, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments,” (v. 17, ESV) he briefly capitulates to the young man’s legalistic mindset to divest him of this wrong orientation, that is, the idea that he has only more law to keep or perhaps only a single deed left to do to have eternal life. And indeed, he does have two more deeds he must do to have eternal life that Jesus will challenge him with.
So, Jesus has already nudged him towards God’s goodness, perfection, and righteousness. (Rom. 3:20) Now, in verses 18-19 of Mark Jesus rehearses with him the commandments that must be kept for the purpose of going beyond them to confront this wealthy young man with the more essential matter of what is inside a man, in this case, the controlling influence his wealth had on him. Mark’s account records the young man’s response, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” (v.20) Now, this sincerity, or perhaps his simplicity, touched the heart of Jesus, so that Jesus “looking at him, loved him…” (Mk. 10:21) “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth” is a very important statement. This young man’s knowledge and concern for the law, his sincerity in attempting to do God’s will as found in the Law, moves the heart of the God who gave the law to Israel. That Jesus loved him indicates an affinity with him, a deep concern that the young man continue on his journey through the law and into grace. Jesus can identify the sincere seeker (”looking at him”) and he loves them and will reveal more truth to them (cf. Acts 10). This young man was one of those who was sincerely seeking. He genuinely wanted to know more from the “Teacher” of what he needed to do. Again, this moved the heart of Jesus such he loved him. But Jesus knows that it is only if the young man sees more deeply than mere obedience to to the law and will acknowledge that he is being held captive by his wealth will he have then come face-to-face with the “good deed” (Lk. 19:16, ESV) he “must do to inherit eternal life.” (Mk. 10:17, ESV) Hence, Jesus shows the young man his essential failure and challenges him to address that issue. It is not a failure in keeping the law per se, but an internal issue that will involve his relation to Jesus. It will be a faith issue. Jesus instructs him to give away his possessions and follow him (Mk. 10:21). Jesus answers the young man’s question by pointing out an internal love that prevents him from following the truth which Jesus makes clear to him when Jesus says, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” (Mk. 10:21, ESV) The young man begins to realize the true nature of the law, the principle of faith, and the need for radical commitment to Jesus.
So, Jesus has told him the “good deed” he must do, the “one thing he still lacks,” which is something he had not realized about himself. This is the purpose of the Word or “speech-act” of Jesus. His riches have a stronghold upon his mind and heart, and he must give them up. Verse 21 presents the answer to the young man’s question, “What do I still lack?” which in Mark has Jesus responding, “You lack one thing…” (Mk. 10:21, ESV) Now Jesus points the man to something more than his success in keeping the commandments and his righteousness as evidenced by his financial prosperity and draws him to himself (Jn. 12: 32). Jesus says, “…sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, and follow me.” (Matt. 19:21, ESV, Mk. 10:21 has “sell all that you have…”) To the rich young man this was a painfully discerning and convicting answer to his question. He thought this an unlikely candidate for the “good deed” he must still yet do for eternal life. But the man’s possessions had captured his heart and will. D. A. Carson, in his commentary on Matthew, writes about the nature of the young man’s response and the condition for eternal life.
“He was willing to discipline himself to observe all the outward stipulations and even perform supererogatory works; but because of his wealth, he had a divided heart. His money was competing with God; and what Jesus everywhere demands as a condition for eternal life is absolute, radical discipleship. This entails the surrender of the self. ‘Keeping the individual commandments is no substitute for the readiness for self-surrender to the absolute claim of God imposed through the call of the gospel. Jesus’ summons in this context means that true obedience to the Law is rendered ultimately in discipleship’ (Lane, Mark, p.367).”[1]
Karl Barth writes the following about Jesus’ answer to the young man’s question about what he must yet do to have eternal life.
“As long as he has great possessions, they have him, and as long as they have him, God cannot and will not have him. He can only transgress his commands. He can never be an heir to eternal life. He must die – as the rich man he is, he must really die and pass – he must become poor if he is to tread the way of life. Because he is not willing to do this, it is in vain that he asks about this way even when he comes with his question to Jesus. Or is it in vain? He is certainly told what he wants to know. He now knows what is involved. He has only to act. Even if he is still a prisoner, he is no longer a helpless prisoner. The door of his prison is wide open. Jesus loved him when He put to him the absolute demand: Sell what you have. He would not have loved him if he had spared him this demand. He proclaimed great joy to him when he did not spare his hearing this demand, when he did not withhold from him the saving Word of God.”[2]
The text then tells us that young man “became very sad, for he was extremely rich” and Jesus looked at him “with sadness.” (Lk. 18:23, 24, ESV)
Now, this account is instructive for our purpose of deciding whether the Calvinist or non-Calvinist soteriology is biblical truth. This account, as does the whole of Scripture, conveys personal challenge, contingency, possibility, and conditionality, and the passage makes sense only upon the basis of libertarian freedom. Furthermore, and more to the refutation of Vanhoozer’s thesis, we see in this passage the refutation of the doctrine of an “effectual call.” God’s intention that the rich young ruler may and should obtain eternal life is made clear through both his love for him and speaking the Word of God to him. Whether the young man was to have eternal life or not depended solely upon the man’s response. He is not “altogether passive therein.” It is clearly the intention of Jesus that he should have eternal life. But the young man rejected the message and love of Jesus. It would insert an intolerable rational incoherence into the passage to claim that God the Son expresses a positive salvific intention to the young man based upon his own decision to accept or reject Jesus’ challenge, yet also claim that God the Father had already decreed the young man’s eternal destiny was not to “inherit eternal life” and that he was predestined to reject Jesus’ call to follow him. The Reformed Calvinist theological propositions require us to accept the idea that the triune God is at cross-purposes within himself. Jesus speaks a word of salvation to the young man but has decreed his damnation. Calvinism has the work of the Father conflicting and contradicting the word and work of the Son.
Moreover, this is in direct opposition to a major theme in John’s gospel which is the unity of the work and will of the Father and the Son “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (Jn. 19:31) Jesus’ words and actions lead us to conclude that it is the real responsibility of the individual as the sole author of their actions to believe that Jesus is the Christ. The Bible is clear that it is the person themselves who decides whether they will obtain the eternal life Jesus offers or not. Salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, and a major teaching in this account is that faith, and therefore the way to eternal life, has its obstacles. The God/man/world relationship contains a dynamic of decision. The biblical witness will not allow that relationship to be reduced to a static theistic determinism regardless of the label it is given – “Authorial,” “dialogical,” etc.
When Jesus speaks of the camel and the eye of the needle to his disciples, he does so to make the point of the danger of riches to the walk of faith and discipleship. (Mt.19:24; Mk.10:25; Lu.18:25) Riches tend to give one the sense of self-sufficiency and lack of need, even in spiritual matters. The rich are prone to rest in their own abilities and be lulled into earthly security. There are certain things that make salvation impossible – hubris and self-sufficiency being two of them. And as far as these are associated with money and wealth, money and wealth will keep one from eternal life.
Furthermore, to the Jews, riches were also a sign of the blessing of God upon one who walks uprightly according to the Law of God. It is from this point of view that the disciples expressed astonishment over the relationship of entering the kingdom of God and the spiritual significance of wealth. Rooted in a similar mindset to that of the young man about gaining eternal life they ask the question, “Who then can be saved?” Carson comments that “Most Jews expected the rich to inherit eternal life, not because their wealth could buy their way in, but because their wealth testified to the blessing of the Lord on their lives.”[3] If the Jew who possesses and keeps the Law, and especially the Jew who has the blessing of God in both religious and earthly status (e. g., ruler, wealth) cannot enter the kingdom of God, then who can? Jesus gives the answer, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Jesus’ answer to the question “Who then can be saved?” (v. 25) was not “Only those God has predestined to salvation and will effectually call.” If such a theological determinism is injected into the passage, then Jesus’ words are a falsehood and a mockery to the young man, the elements in the passage are rendered incoherent, and such a theological proposition is in conflict with the broader contexts in the gospels where the account is found (Mk. 10:17-31; Lk. 18:18-30). On what basis then is eternal life obtained? “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” means that salvation is to be in God’s way as opposed to the preconceptions and designs of men. As far as obedience to the law, earning favor with God, performing good deeds, or having great wealth and status – even being a Jew as one of God’s “elect” or “chosen” people – does not bring about or entitle one to salvation. These are all in the “with man” category. Neither can the passage be interpreted as teaching that salvation is predetermined by God for a limited number, for again, that would make nonsense of what Jesus has just spoken to the young man and the love he felt towards him. Such an interpretation throws the passage into theological chaos and inserts incoherence where there need be none. Rather, Jesus is reorienting the thinking of the disciples to a way of salvation that is possible “with God” in contrast to all other ways “with man.” The contrast is between human misconceptions regarding indications of God’s favor and the way to obtain eternal life and the way God has ordained to obtain eternal life and experience his favor by faith. Faith in God, or in this situation Jesus’ “follow me” is the “with God” Jesus spoke to the disciples. The passage juxtaposes the impossibilities of eternal life from the human context of obedience to God’s law, which was the gracious gift and privilege of the Jew, along with the presumption of the blessing of God evidenced by great wealth, with the certainty that “all things are possible with God” as the way of faith. Jesus pits the temporal against the eternal, the flesh against the spirit. That is to say that there is a way of salvation that only God has made possible and revealed. It is the way of faith and is distinctly spiritual. As in the Old Testament Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness, so now right relationship with God and eternal life is still by faith that issues forth in radical discipleship to Jesus who is the fulfillment of God saving purposes. Jesus is God’s way of saving and granting eternal life to whoever believes because of who he is as the Savior of the world (Jn. 3:16). He, Jesus Christ, is the way to eternal life. The way of salvation is exclusive, but those who may obtain it are not exclusive or limited. It is a universal salvation. Jesus is not excluding or limiting the possibility of salvation but universalizing it on the basis that from God’s perspective and in his way of faith in Christ salvation is certainly possible for all. Who can be saved? Anyone who looks to God’s way of salvation and believes will be saved. The account of the rich young ruler affirms this. For once we dismiss all that is “with man” which only ends in the impossibility of salvation, we are left with the comforting truth that “with God all things are possible.” It is to God that we must look by faith for our salvation. In fact, the misconceptions of the rich young ruler and the disciples produced an exclusive and limited salvation. They were perceiving it as an earthly kingdom which Jesus was to usher in and over which he was to reign as King of the Jews. They were basing “eternal life” upon the signs that one was blessed by God as they kept the Law. This perspective of obtaining eternal life “with man” was embodied in the rich young man’s religious efforts and the blessing of God associated with wealth. This was also the understanding of the disciple’s which prompted them to ask “Who then can be saved?” Jesus points them to the ways of God in salvation. He answers, “with God all things are possible.” God has made a way to have eternal life in Jesus. Indeed, as Peter would later write, “all things” pertaining to “life and godliness” (1 Pet. 1:3) are possible “with God.” The contrast is between the divinely ordained way of faith practically communicated in Jesus’ authoritative word, “…sell what you possess, give to the poor… and come, follow me” and the young man’s human misconceptions indicated by “What good deed must I do…” and “all these I have kept.” God himself was teaching the young man and the disciples his way of salvation. Radical abandonment to Jesus was God’s way. This is the definition of a response of faith. It was a “possibility with God” opened to him. Jesus’ words make this clear.
Therefore, the young man’s eternal destiny was not fixed. The man was very close to the kingdom in that he also asked “What do I still lack?” Jesus gave him the answer. The content of Jesus’ words made it clear that the way to eternal life was based upon the condition of faith which in the case of the rich young ruler took the form of “…sell what you possess, give to the poor…” as well as the universal call to “follow me.” The rich, young ruler rejected the call, and it would be incoherent for the same God who predestined this rejection also to have “loved him” (Mk. 10:21) or to be “deeply grieved” (Lu. 18:24) over the young ruler’s choice in the matter. It would be incoherent for the same God who predestined this rejection to have told him what he needed to do to have eternal life.
The important point here is that the call was not “effectual.” Even given the intent of God that the young man should follow Christ which is evident by the content of the divine “speech-act,” that is, according to “the call” itself, that “call” was no effective. The content of the call given by God himself expressed the intent of God and therefore the will of God for him, but that intent was not realized. The call itself was not effectual. Therefore, there is another dynamic other than an irresistible “effect” based upon an unconditional election that accounts for the fact that the young man rejected Christ’s call and intention that he inherit eternal life. That dynamic is found in the nature of the free relationship between God and man as a creature with a real, genuine will rooted in and exercised by the self. The passage affirms the worldview and theological position of libertarian freewill.
Clark Pinnock addresses the unbiblical conception Calvinists have about faith being subsumed within one’s unconditional election that issues forth in an “effectual call” lest faith be a meritorious work contributing to one’s salvation by which the sinner may boast. But this conception of faith as a work is foreign to the biblical understanding of faith, which, although is something the person themselves must do, is always placed in contrast to works. Faith as an act of the human will and its nature as non-meritorious are both certainly confirmed in this passage of the rich, young ruler. The fact that faith was something the young man was to exercise and demonstrate by giving up his riches and following Christ is something Calvinists object to. They claim that if faith is something the person actually does to inherit eternal life and that it is a possibility for any sinner, then this makes salvation based upon a human work of believing. Faith would be something man does and therefore it would be a meritorious contribution to one’s salvation. Clark Pinnock addresses this Calvinist misconception of the nature of faith. He writes,
“The standard criticism leveled against a theology of this kind is synergism. It is supposed to bring into the event of salvation a decisive human work, and thereby destroy its purely gracious character. But this is simply not the case. Faith is not a work at all (Rom. 4:16). It is not an achievement and has no merit attaching to it. It is simply the surrender of the will to God, the stretching out of an empty hand to receive the gift of grace. In the act of faith, we renounce all our works, and repudiate completely every claim to self-righteousness. Far from encouraging conceit and self-esteem, faith utterly excludes them (Rom. 3:27). Even when we speak of faith as a “condition,” let us not misrepresent the meaning of the expression. Faith is not the condition of grace, which originates in the counsels of eternity. Faith is rather the response to grace God calls for through which salvation becomes a reality to the individual concerned. We are saved by God’s grace through faith.” [4]
Contrary to Vanhoozer’s “effectual call,” we have here a contingent salvific reality that God does not determine. Despite the “dialogue” and that the “Author” himself was involved in the “speech-act,” the call was not effectual. The account shows us that the destiny of the young man was not a closed book. There was an option presented to him. He must trust and obey Jesus’ authoritative word to him. But it is “difficult” for him to “enter the kingdom of heaven” because of his riches. And indeed, as Jesus has been pointing out, it is impossible for “a rich person,” that is, one who is in the grip of wealth to enter the kingdom of God. What is needed is what God makes possible. The young man needed to and could have switched contexts from what was impossible “with man” to what was possible “with God.” He had to display saving faith by letting go of his riches. But as much as his wealth was a hindrance, the impossibility lay not in his wealth per se, neither did it lay in his non-election to salvation by God. The impossibility lay “with man” in the sense that the young man’s riches did not count towards eternal life and entrance into the kingdom of God. His orientation (and that of the disciples as shown by the subsequent dialogue with Jesus), was “man’s” orientation to God. It was one of their own making. He chose to look away from the possibility that God had wrought in Christ Jesus for his eternal life – “with God all things are possible.” As long as he maintained “man’s” way (riches are God’s blessing and favor from God and with God), and was in the grip of his wealth (“impossible with man”), and refused a faith response to Jesus to take him at his word (i.e., “possible with God), salvation was an impossibility. “God’s possibility” had to do with the call to faith, a radical change of heart and mind towards the spiritual and eternal, and his turning away from the material and temporal. This, God enables, but does not determine.
If a Jew of such religious devotion and suitability as to his earthly wealth and status is not one to occupy the kingdom of God, then who can? “Who then can be saved?” is a question that springs from the astonishment that the way the disciples had thought about obtaining salvation was now cut off by Jesus. Jesus was radically reorienting their soteriological perspective towards God’s way “in him.” The religiously impeccable Jew who also had the blessing of God in great wealth was identified by Jesus as one who could not enter the kingdom of God, not because of his wealth per se, but because of his unbelief to which his wealth was a contributing factor. (see Jn. 3:18) Then who can be saved? Only those who acknowledge God’s way of possibility in Jesus, not man’s way of impossibility. God’s possibility was present in the way of faith “in Christ.” The response of faith for that young man was inherent in the “sell, give, and come, follow me.” All human expectations as to the order of things in salvation and the earning of eternal life according to human devices were nullified by Jesus. The Old Testament way of faith in God was now reiterated with Jesus as the focal point of that faith and salvation. The original salvific design is being fulfilled as planned, contrary to human expectations and established Jewish “tradition.” Therefore, “…many who are first will be last, and the last first.” (Matt. 19:30)
Jesus’ encounter with the rich, young ruler confirms a non-deterministic soteriology. Jesus is reorienting people’s minds to God’s criteria for salvation which is radically different than man’s misconceptions. He was not teaching the impossibility of salvation for any but a limited number for which God makes it “possible.” The broader context bears out a universal, non-deterministic soteriology. “With God all things are possible.” (Mt. 19:26)
The following parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16) makes the point of God’s unbounded grace to give also to “the last” what he has given to “the first” on the basis of his intentional generosity, not upon an arbitrary choice. God’s way of salvation does not conform to human conventions and expectations but is simply a salvation that is by grace through faith. (Rom. 4:16; 5:2; Eph. 2:8) God is good, not in the arbitrary way of unconditional election which only leads us into an epistemological void as to the nature of God and the definition of his goodness, but in the abundant way of universal grace. It was C. S. Lewis who observed that God’s goodness may be more than our understanding of goodness, but it is not less. God’s ways do not reverse, contract, confound or contradict what we know of goodness, but simply break the boundaries of goodness as we know and practice it in its lesser forms. Divine goodness is marked by an overwhelming generosity to all. Hence the meaning of “…the last will be first, and the first last” (Matt. 20:16) has to do with Jewish expectations of salvation based upon human devices and Israelite exclusivity in contrast to God’s universal, saving grace “in Christ” to be received by faith. Thos who were “first” (the Jews) who reject God’s way of salvation in Christ will be last, and those who were “last” (the Gentiles) who do accept God’s way of salvation in Christ will be first.
Furthermore, the short pericope prior to the account of the rich young ruler speaks about Jesus’ indignation at the disciple’s rebuke of those bringing their children to Jesus that he might touch them. Jesus contrasts the divine way of salvation – becoming like a little child with respect to faith and trust in God – with human perceptions of who constitutes the kingdom of God and how one enters it. Jesus makes it clear in a thoroughly non-deterministic pronouncement in Matt.18:1-6 that you “will never enter the kingdom of heaven” “unless you turn and become like little children.” Moreover, the one that is “greatest in the kingdom of heaven” is the one who “humbles himself like this child.” These are statements that teach dynamic potentiality, possibility, contingency, and conditionality in the way of salvation. They are not simply informing us of evidences to be found in God’s elect.
The point to note is that even though Jesus’ divine “speech-act” is “authorial” it presents a condition and contingency. Therefore, it is not “authorial” in the sense that it is bringing to pass a predetermined event or eternal destiny. The passage indicates that it was the young man who chose to go away contrary to the will and intention of Jesus for him, and he went away sorrowful (Mt. 19:22). Jesus instructed him. Jesus exposed his heart. Jesus spoke words of invitation to follow him. Jesus loved him. All that Jesus did makes no sense in the context of a theology of an “effectual call.” Obviously, Jesus genuinely wanted this young man to give up his riches, give to the poor and follow him. Are we then to conclude that in contradiction to the words and compassion of Jesus, an “effectual call” was not the predetermined will of God for this young man and therefore was not granted by God? Or, are we to conclude that due to the words and compassion of Jesus, an “effectual call” will come to this young man in the future? That would be a gross example of eisegesis. It would be a bizarre interpretation of the text. But it would have to be the Calvinist’s explanation of what is going on at the deepest spiritual levels in this account. The young man will either experience an “effectual call” in the future, or he will not and therefore cannot be saved. But such a theology introduces confusion and nonsense into the account. On Calvinism the young man went away because there was no effectual call because there was no unconditional election of this person to salvation. He was not predestined to eternal life. But we see the incoherence that this theological scheme inserts into the text. Jesus’ words, as the word of God to this young man to come and follow him and find eternal life are emptied of their meaning and their content and are rendered inconsistent with God’s divine decree not to save the young man. A confusion of divine purposes is introduced, along with disingenuousness to the hearer. God and Jesus were working at cross purposes. An “authorial speech act” of Jesus as God, had a particular content that indicated its distinct salvific purpose was to bring the rich young ruler to discipleship and eternal life, yet, that “authorial speech act” never realized its purpose. Why? Because he was not predestined to salvation. The better explanation is that the rich, young ruler chose not to follow Jesus? A plain reading of the passage makes that clear. It was not because of an eternal decree of God that the young man turned and went away sorrowful. It was because “he has great possessions (Mk. 10:22, ESV). Indeed, again, Jesus even “loved him” (Mk. 10:21) but the man refused to love Jesus in return.
Vanhoozer is wrong to present God’s speech-acts as authorial in the sense that they either constitute, consummate, or irresistibly convert on the basis of an “effectual call” which is rooted in an unconditional election. The Bible cannot be read coherently on the basis of such a theology, that is, the Bible makes no sense on the basis of Calvinism. God’s total salvific will for this young man was communicated to him in the words of Jesus. There was only one call. There is no “effectual call” needed in addition to the call of Jesus to the young man. Jesus’ words are the call of God. Jesus’s words express the love and will of God to the young man. Certainly, the man’s true character was being ferreted out by Jesus. He was revealing to the young man his true self. But Jesus genuinely desired for him to have eternal life. It was the young man who had a choice to either accept the conditions or reject them. He rejected them contrary to the will of God for him. Therefore, the account teaches us that salvation is conditional and not predestinarian in the way proposed by Reformed Calvinists. It is based upon the response of faith of the hearer to the authoritative Word of God. To maintain otherwise is for Vanhoozer to present a one-sided depiction of salvation for the elect only and ignore the incoherence generated by his deterministic theology with the clear presentation of the God/man relation to this text and so many others like it.
So Vanhoozer is faced with a critical hermeneutical question. Does rational, biblical coherence matter in biblical interpretation? Will Vanhoozer simply ignore the fact that this passage is in direct contradiction to a theology of deterministic sovereignty, unconditional election, and an “effectual call,” and does not accurately represent God’s authorial and dialogical speech-acts as theistic determinism?
In the end does Vanhoozer have a new way, a biblically sound way, at reconciling Calvinist absolute sovereignty with free will? Not that I can see. For although Vanhoozer employs literary “authorial,” and “speech-act” theory to assist, he can ultimately only offer the compatibilist reasoning which cannot account for passages such as these. Although Vanhoozer speaks about “communicative action,” “dialogical relation,” “genuine freedom,” “answerability,” “secondary authorship,” “internally persuasive discourse,” “human response,” “communion,” “the freedom of consent” (RT, 384) etc., he fully embraces the doctrine of the “effectual call” whose corollary is an unconditional election which is rooted in theistic determinism. He also claims that “the divine/human dialogical relationship is asymmetrical.” (RT, 382) With this we may agree, for we do not interpret “asymmetrical” as “predetermined.” Yet Vanhoozer leads us to believe that for him “asymmetrical” does mean “predetermined.” He clearly indicates that the outcome of petitionary prayer “is divinely determined” (RT, 384) which is to say that all outcomes (“whatsoever comes to pass”) even without petitionary prayer are therefore “divinely determined” to the very same degree. This renders petitionary prayer meaningless with respect to its being petitionary and with respect to the outcome. So Vanhoozer’s language may suggest a belief in free will, but his ultimate determinism seems to render this suggestion incoherent. Theologian Jack Cottrell writes,
“I believe the Calvinistic effort to reconcile sovereignty with free will must fail as long as the concept of unconditionality is maintained. No matter how “free will” is redefined and the efficacy of the decree is qualified, Calvinism is still a theology of determinism as long as it declares that nothing God does can be conditioned by man or can be a reaction to something in the world.
This idea that a sovereign God must always act and never react is a point on which almost all Calvinists seem to agree…In short, Calvinists must embrace unqualified unconditionality because their concept of sovereignty demands it…Now my firm conviction is that this idea of unconditionality completely rules out any meaningful notion of human freedom. Those Calvinists who continue to hold to both are simply inconsistent, and the devices by which they hope to rescue rationality – redefining free will, second causes, and permission – quickly lose their integrity within the confines of unconditionality.
This is especially true of the Calvinist’s redefined notion of free will, i.e., that the will is free as long as a person is able to choose voluntarily or to do what he wants to do, as influenced by his motives and desires. But we will remember that Calvinists also say that God determines the desires and motives that underlie all choices. Hence God determines specific choices by sovereignly determining the situations, motives, and desires that will infallibly cause those choices. Every human decision is exactly as God decreed it would be; it could not be otherwise….
The reason for this confusion again is the idea of unconditionality. Calvinists are rightly concerned to maintain free will, but at the same time they will not allow God to react to anything in man. But these two thoughts are simply incompatible. If man’s action is truly free, then God does not cause it but responds to it. If he cannot respond to it, then he must cause it. The latter is the only alternative consistent with an unconditional decree…The only way to arrive at a real alternative to determinism is to abandon the notion of unconditionality as essential to the definition of divine sovereignty.”[5]
Much of how Vanhoozer uses language would make one believe that he has maintained the concept of conditionality in his “remythologizing” of theology. But his doctrine of an “effectual call” reveals that he means to say something other than that persons are free to choose to come to Christ by believing and be saved or free to reject Christ and salvation and remain under condemnation. Vanhoozer has made it clear he believes in an “effectual call.” He thinks this is a good test case for how God works in a communicative way that is appropriate to human nature and personhood rather than by impersonal, causal, strategic, instrumental means to accomplish his divine will which determines “whatsoever comes to pass.” But regardless of the personal, relational aspect of “communicative action,” the fact that Vanhoozer claims God’s call to be effectual raises inescapable theological difficulties with passages like Jesus’ call to the rich, young ruler.
If the Spirit attends to the Word to effect that Word in a person’s heart and mind through understanding and persuasion, avoiding any impersonal, strategic, manipulative connotations of force or coercion, it must be that God alone determines who gets to experience this “effectual” work of the Spirit. Therefore, salvation is based upon an unconditional election and is without respect to human will, decision, and action. God determines who will be saved and he irresistibly effects that salvation completely apart from the person’s active decision and involvement as the sole author of their decisions and actions. According to the Westminster Confession the person is “altogether passive therein.” But this is completely foreign and contradictory to the above passage and the overwhelming testimony of Scripture. It is rationally incoherent for the following reasons.
First, it is incoherent to say that the Spirit works by persuading a person to will God’s will while also maintaining that the person is “altogether passive therein?” Persuasion, to remain a rationally coherent concept, implies, at some point, if not a sole authorship of decision and action and the ability of contrary choice, then at a minimum that the person is involved in what is going on but not as being determined. But Vanhoozer speaks of determined “persuasion.” This is incoherent. This fails to avoid the ideas of the impersonal, strategic, causal, or manipulative. It is a clear statement that the person themselves, as a self with a will of their own, that is, which they control, is bypassed or overridden by God to achieve an ultimate end. This is not what it means to be persuaded. Persuasion implies the retention of an ability to do otherwise, not the working of an irresistible “effect.” An “irresistible” or “determined” persuasion is an incoherent concept.
Secondly, on Calvinism, a person cannot come to “understand,” be “persuaded,” or know that they are among those chosen for salvation. We simply cannot know what eternal destiny has been determined for us because the epistemological assurance of salvation has shifted from Christ “lifted up” on the cross to an unknown eternal decree regarding each person’s eternal destiny. (cf. Jn. 12:32)
Thirdly, there is no explanation given as to why God chooses one person for salvation over another. This generates a complete unknown about God’s moral character which is inconsistent with the relationship of biblical monotheism and universal sin and undermines the possibility of a response of love and worship to God.
Fourthly, there is no gospel of “good news” to those who are not predestined to salvation. Although the content of the gospel message is “good news” for all who hear it, the word of God to the non-elect has no truth correspondence with the unchangeable reality of their eternal damnation. God speaks one word of “good news” with two opposite “effects.” The message of light and life has no meaning or effect in the non-elect for whom God has predetermined darkness and death. This indicts God in falsehood and disingenuousness.
Fifthly, faith is made meaningless and redundant. For what sense of “pleasure” is it to God to find faith in those for whom he has predetermined it and causes it to occur? (Heb. 11:6) What definition does faith have if it is not the individual’s response to the Word of God, or what purpose does faith serve if it is a “gift of God” (Eph. 2:8) for the elect only? It is reduced to an impersonal redundancy. These are just brief mentions of some of the insurmountable difficulties created by the Reformed Calvinist doctrines of an eternal decree, predestination, unconditional election and an effectual call. Unconditionality strikes at the heart of a meaningful, proper definition of human freedom and distorts numerous other biblical truths. Vanhoozer’s compatibilist position will redefine human freedom in a certain way to accommodate an unconditional, deterministic election to salvation. Whether this compatibilist redefinition is plausible was examined above where it was shown to be deficient. Hence, Vanhoozer has not really found a way through literary theory to ease the problems his Calvinist view of sovereignty generates.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” ed. Frank Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 424. It must be noted that D. A. Carson, an eminent Reformed Calvinist, speaks of “a condition for eternal life” and the “surrender of the self.” This is a prime example of the inconsistency of the Reformed Calvinist who theologically teaches an unconditional election, an effectual call, and that the self can do nothing with respect to one’s eternal destiny. It is God alone who elects and effects salvation. It is inconsistent because such a perspective is clearly contrary to Jesus’ dialogue with the young man and Carson’s own comments. Carson also quotes Lane who talks about “self-surrender to the absolute claim of God imposed through the call of the gospel.” All these concepts directly speak of salvation as conditional or imply an act of one’s will that “surrenders” its self. This is logically incoherent given Carson’s Reformed soteriology of unconditional election and an effectual call, for these statements presuppose the young man is the sole author of the act that is being required of him and that he surely can choose contrary to the will of Jesus (God) who is confronting the young man with a divine “communicative speech-act.” Indeed, in the end he does refuse. Therefore, it is of critical importance for our examination of Vanhoozer’s authorial speech-act theology to observe that Jesus’ summons to eternal life, his “communicative speech-act” the content of which was “follow me,” was not effective in the rich, young ruler. There is nothing in the passage to indicate that this call was anything less than a real possibility. The call was univocal and intended to be obeyed. Jesus even “loved him.” We have here, not a predestinarian, effectual, divine “communicative speech-act,” but a libertarian response to a gracious, loving, divine communicative speech-act. Another observation we must make concerning the role of rational coherence in proper interpretation is that Carson feels free to espouse a fundamental Reformed theology that is inconsistent with his commentary on this text. He interprets this text incoherently with his Reformed theology and this phenomenon is simply ignored by most biblical scholars reading Carson. It is accepted practice to allow Calvinists to interpret texts like this in contradiction with their underlying theology and not question the hermeneutical validity of this practice. I contend that this is a serious disregard of the importance of logical, moral, epistemological, and biblical coherence as essential for determining a biblically accurate interpretation and theology.
[2] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. II, Part II – The Doctrine of God, (London: T&T Clark), 620.
[3] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” ed. Frank Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 425.
[4] Clark H. Pinnock, “Introduction,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock, (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 15.
[5] Jack W. Cottrell, “The Nature of the Divine Sovereignty” ed. Clark H. Pinnock, The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 102-104.
The Truth of the Gospel 