Vanhoozer writes,
“Bakhtin himself, however, does not think that it necessarily follows from a character’s freedom from monological determination (i.e., coercion) that this same character simply falls out of the author’s design: “No, this independence and freedom of a character is precisely what is incorporated into the author’s design. This design, as it were, predestines the character for freedom (a relative freedom, of course).” The Bible maintains, of course, that something conclusive has taken place in our world, that the author’s design has been realized, that the ultimate word of the world has been spoken, and that this Word has a name: “Jesus Christ” (Heb. 1:2). Jesus Christ is the voice-person, the definitive divine word-idea whose address to us, together with our response, dialogically consummates everyone who comes into the world. The same word of God that came to Abraham, Moses, and David comes to, addresses, and consummates us as it solicits the obedience of faith.”
Our freedom is our answerability. In the word of Karl Barth: “the being of man is an answer, or more precisely, a being lived in the act of answering the Word of God.” The word of the Lord came to Abraham and he believed it (Gen. 15:6). It came to David and he was thankful (2 Sam. 7:18-29). When the word of the Lord came to Jonah, however, he ran away (Jon. 1:1-3). He was “free” to reject it just as Mary was free to accept it (Lk. 1:38, “let it be to me according to your word”). So it is with every human being: the Author addresses each person and each person freely responds and, in so doing, freely realizes the voice-idea of the Author.” (RT, 335)
If the phrase, “this independence and freedom of a character is precisely what is incorporated into the author’s design” is to mean anything, then this “design” cannot possibly be interpreted deterministically, and therefore Calvinism is wrong and unbiblical. By these words Vanhoozer is giving assent to a theological truth contrary to his fundamental theology. If Vanhoozer means anything coherent by the phrase “this independence and freedom of a character” then predestination to salvation is not unconditional. Vanhoozer agrees with Bakhtin that “This design, as it were, predestines the character for freedom (a relative freedom, of course).” This is precisely what the non-Calvinist position states. But it is precisely what the Calvinist does not believe or teach and is therefore incoherent with Calvinism.
For the non-Calvinist predestination involves “the author’s design” of human beings to a relative, yet genuine “independence and freedom.” If this is the case then faith is not predestined for certain individuals, but God predestined the free response of faith to be the only way to appropriate the salvation that he predestined to be found only “in Christ.” With this I can heartily agree.
But here we have a full-scale incoherence for a Reformed Calvinist. We have acceptance and rejection (i.e., the ability of contrary choice) and the admission that “every human being…freely responds to “the Author’s address.” (i.e., sole authorship of one’s actions). Taking these words at their plain import, we have the makings of an unlimited atonement as opposed to a limited atonement. “The word of the Lord came” to those in the Old and New Testaments and they were “free” to reject it or accept it and “so it is with every human being.” Every human being has the ability of a genuine free-will response of faith to the “good news” of what Christ has done on our behalf and therefore the possibility of salvation. This is in direct contrast to the Calvinist doctrines of “total inability” and “unconditional election. The non-Calvinist agrees with what Vanhoozer has said above about the real potential for either the acceptance or rejection of the word of God. But this is in opposition to his doctrines of “irresistible grace” and the “effectual call.” The scope of what has been said and done in Christ “dialogically consummates everyone who comes into the world” yet that “consummation” hinges upon “our response” for it “solicits the obedience of faith.” But all this is in contradiction with Vanhoozer’s Calvinist theology and soteriology. To use the words “solicit” and “obedience” means that the person is the sole author of their decision and has the ability of contrary choice. God authored the plan of salvation in Christ and that it be appropriated freely by faith. So salvation is all of God while our eternal destiny turns on our believing. Our eternal destiny, while we live, is therefore an open issue, contrary to the Calvinist understanding of predestination and unconditional election. Again, Vanhoozer states the following,
“So it is with every human being: the Author addresses each person and each person freely responds and, in so doing, freely realizes the voice-idea of the Author.” (RT, 335)
Note carefully what is being said in this statement. The first part, “So it is with every human being: the Author addresses each person and each person freely responds…” is of course incoherent with Vanhoozer’s deterministic Calvinist doctrines. But Vanhoozer must also affirm his Calvinism, so he adds the phrase, “…and in so doing, freely realizes the voice-idea of the Author.” Recall that “the voice-idea of the Author” means God’s sovereign predetermination of all things. So in effect Vanhoozer is telling us that “as people freely respond to God, they freely do what God predetermined them to do.” And this is, of course, nonsense. Perhaps Vanhoozer’s references here to human freedom and response are referring to the compatibilist versions of “freedom” and “response?” What is a “free response” to “the Author’s address” that “realizes the voice-idea of the Author?” Did Adolph Hitler “freely realize the voice-idea of the Author?” Yes, the reality of such evil certainly remains a pesky problem for the theistic determinist. (RT, 502, 503)
The Truth of the Gospel 