By the term “classical theism” Vanhoozer includes theologies that have “God as causal agent.” This, of course, includes Reformed Calvinism. “God as causal agent” in the sense we are concerned with here is inherent in Reformed Calvinist theology due to its definitions of God’s eternal decree, God’s sovereignty, unconditional election, and an effectual call.
Now, by embracing the “effectual call” it is logically required that Vanhoozer embrace the whole comprehensive deterministic causal scheme of Reformed Calvinism that supports this “effectual call.” By affirming that this call is “effectual” Vanhoozer is also affirming the deterministic causal agency of Calvinism. The “effectual call” entails deterministic divine causal agency. And it becomes comprehensive, not only with respect to the elect who God chooses to save, but the non-elect he has not chosen to save. The eternal destinies of every person are predetermined by God.
But what is meant by “causal agent” varies in “classical theism.” For some “classical theists” (Arminians, Povisionists and other non-Calvinists) divine causal agency is not problematic because God’s casual activity is not defined as a universal divine causal determinism.[1] God’s sovereignty is not a theistic determinism that refers to all things. What holds “classical theism captive” is not God as a causal agent but the universal divine causal determinism of Calvinist theology.
God is a person. Human beings are made in his image. As such, they are also persons. To be a person is to be a causal agent in and of one’s self. Only God is sovereign, which it to say that his causal agency is fully able to bring about what he purposes and plans without being subject to his creation. So how does God’s sovereignty work in conjunction with how he has made his human creatures who are causal free agents? God determines what to permit or allow the creatures to determine for themselves. Yet, God also determines the degree to which he refuses to determine the details of the existence of his human creatures. Therefore, his sovereignty includes allowing the creatures to be themselves as free agents while also being subject to him. He overrules their freedom to the degree necessary to accomplish his plans and purposes. “To the degree necessary” is the contested principle. Of course, the creature is ultimately and finally subject to the plans and purposes of the Creator, but not necessarily irresistibly subject to a predetermined end or in every detail as required by Calvinism. God uses both the stubbornness of the stubborn and sinful, and the willingness of the willing and humble, to work what he has purposed to bring about. He has not preordained to bring about stubbornness or humility in individuals, let alone whatsoever comes to pass. Yet, God may have to act to cause certain outcomes, but this would not be in a communicative vacuum or without prior libertarian freedom of action on the part of the person. God’s actions are marked by interactions with free human beings, with the prerogative of acting causally, effectually, sovereignly when the prior interaction demands such a divine response. The soils of men’s hearts are very different (Mt. 13:1-23; Mk. 4:1-20; Lk. 8:4-15), and God looks for the willing heart whom he may bless and guide into a life of purpose and joy in his will. God’s sovereign will has set the boundaries of life and death, salvation and judgment, yet surely the scriptures reveal to us that between God and man there is a relationship of mutual response. Persons are responsible for their decisions with respect to God’s revelation to them of these boundaries. And in response to these real decisions God acts accordingly. The Scriptures clearly bear this out, and any theology that is biblical must incorporate this non-deterministic relational dynamic. In 2 Chron. 15:1, 2 “The Spirit of God came upon Azariah” the prophet and he spoke to Asa, king of Judah and all the people of Judah and Benjamin saying,
“Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord is with you while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will forsake you.”
This is man’s freedom within his creaturely relation to his Creator. It is a relation set in motion and defined by God, yet it is a conditional and contingent relation. It is a relation only coherent upon libertarian freedom. The Creator God initiates a revelation of himself and his love for the creature to the highest degree “in Christ.” God, although sovereign, is sovereign love. He has provided for our salvation. This is a part the loving Sovereign plays in the “theodrama,” leaving the creature the one condition for obtaining eternal life – only to surrender in faith to the grace and mercy of such a Sovereign. The sinner’s adoration and worship of God can only spring from the reality of God’s love and the genuineness of the offer of salvation based in the assurance of that love to every sinner. This is to say that the gospel or “good news” is the fundamental truth for proper human existence. It is the message that needs to be heard for all proper response to God and what needs to be continually put before the Christian for their growth and maturity in the faith. The gospel is the touchstone for challenging and circumscribing our libertarian freedom.
Hence the greatest need in the American evangelical church today is to both define and preserve the biblical gospel message. It must be the gospel that is put before sinners and saints alike. Perhaps the spiritual malaise in the church today stems from the Reformed Calvinist distortion of the biblical gospel that makes it no longer “good news” to the hearer and imposes a static, hopeless determinism upon the Christian message. I have argued that Reformed Calvinist soteriology is antithetical to the “good news” and cannot coherently be put into the service of true evangelistic ministry. Calvinist soteriology has no biblical “good news” to proclaim. I also believe that misapprehensions or forgetfulness of the true biblical gospel also leads to spiritual indifference and worldliness among believers. Hence, as Calvinism spreads the biblical gospel will be in decline. The assurance that God’s love and the death of Christ apply to every individual is fundamental for both the evangelistic task and the call to the lordship of Christ in one’s life. Under a theistic determinism, admonitions regarding the lordship of Christ in our lives are made to be immaterial. Exhortations to submission and resignation of one’s will to God’s will are incoherent on the basis of theistic determinism and the denial of libertarian freedom. “Submit your will to God’s will” makes no sense in a theology that teaches God works effectually only in those he has chosen and persons are completely passive in the matter of their salvation.
If it is replied that God works what he has predetermined for each person through “secondary means” such as exhortations, invitations, and calls to believe, the problem is that the Calvinist has God speaking inconsistently with his Calvinism. He is speaking as if this way of submission is something we genuinely do, e.g., humble yourselves! The Calvinist makes God out as presenting to us possibilities, options, and actions that are contingent on how we decide to think and act. They will say that the decision we make as to the gospel message determines our eternal destiny. But on Calvinism this is not the reality of the situation. The divine communication is presented as if libertarian freedom were true when that is simply not the case given the Calvinist doctrines. On Calvinism there actually is no contingency or potentiality although the Calvinist messenger speaks as if there is. The Calvinist will claim that through the content of the “good news” – “God loves you,” “Jesus died for you,” “confess and repent of your sin,” “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” “submit your will to God’s will,” etc., a predetermined course that is irresistible and effective is being played out. But that means that there is no truth correspondence between the words spoken and the reality of the situation that God has predetermined and causes that some who hear those words will respond and others will not and cannot respond. Albeit the Calvinist speaker may not be bothered by this inconsistency between his words of contingency and his deterministic theological belief, but this only amounts to the Calvinist being sincerely disingenuous. I contend that this is a serious problem with serious ramifications for evangelism and the lordship of Christ. It is to put before sinner and saint an erroneous message that the Spirit, as the Spirit of truth, cannot sanction and affirm with his presence. The sooner the church resolves the confusion that exists over its most fundamental message the sooner “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” (Matt. 24:14) The critical question before the evangelical church is “What is the biblical gospel?” Distinctions between primary and secondary causal agency are distinctions without a difference. God is the sole, responsible actor in his own “theodrama”. Vanhoozer affirms the Calvinist theological paradigm through the doctrine of an “effectual call.” But Calvinism is, of course, incoherent with the full testimony of the Bible. Vanhoozer surely observes in Scripture the personal interaction and communicative elements that bespeak of the real will of the creature interacting with the real will of God in such a way that the creature can act contrary to the will of God. Words like love, obey, disobey, command, repent, believe, submit, humble yourselves, receive, reject, etc. are words of real contingency and therefore interactive words that require genuine willing of the creature defined as sole author of one’s actions with the ability of contrary choice. But these words are incoherent in a deterministic context, even if it is claimed that the determinism is “communicative.” This is Vanhoozer’s problem. He attempts to convince us that the determinism he cannot forsake is of a kind that can incorporate the language of non-determinism that we find throughout Scripture. I find that Vanhoozer is unsuccessful in his attempt to meld two mutually exclusive perspectives. Scripture is full of words, phrases and accounts that indicate the realities of genuine contingency, possibility, potentiality and human decision, especially those contrary to the “communicated” will of God. The Bible testifies to a God who reigns decisively and effectively according to the fullness of his nature in a world that exhibits a real non-determinism. In this respect it is Vanhoozer’s comprehensive determinism, especially his comprehensive salvific determinism, that is problematic. Any claims about the “communicative” nature of God ought to be set in the context of Scripture as coherent with whole teaching of that Scripture. Theistic determinism ought not to simply be presupposed and then justified by a “communicative” theology that still lacks coherence with many biblical doctrines and themes. We ought to embrace a sound biblical theology that incorporates such “communicative action” without rational incoherence, for that is how the Bible presents it. For one can maintain that God is the causal agent of all that exists (Creator), and a causal agent in history who will bring it to his desired end (Sovereign), without generating the logical, moral, epistemic, and theological problems that are caused by the Calvinist’s universal divine causal determinism. For instance, we are compelled to ask this simple question. Is this “lordly loving of human persons” going to love some and not others? If so, why? Due to what is at stake here we are compelled to demand a biblically coherent answer and not a flight to “mystery.”
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] This term is used by Dr. William Lane Criag in the following lecture in which he critiques Calvinist determinism. William Lane Craig, Defenders 2 Class, Doctrine of Creation: Part 10. Oct. 21, 2012. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10/ You can read the transcript or listen to the lecture at this link. Last accessed January 15, 2024.
The Truth of the Gospel 