Vanhoozer writes,
“Does it follow that the effectual call supervenes on the preached word? No, for this proves too much. Not everyone who hears is automatically united with Christ. Though there is a connection between the external and internal calls, it is not supervenience…in the case of the effectual call the one (external) does not always entail the other (internal).
How then are we to understand the relation of the evangelical and the effectual calls? If God deals with us communicatively in a manner that befits our nature, what is it about certain communicative acts that renders them efficacious? Could it be not merely the message but truth?…On the other hand, the truth in and of itself often seems powerless to change us…We need the illumination of the Spirit for that. Not for nothing has the Reformed tradition discussed the effectual call in terms of Word and Spirit.
…In what does the effectuality of the Spirit precisely consist? What, if anything, does the Spirit add to the Word?
There is a connection, I submit, between pneumatology and perlocutions. To return to speech act theory: a perlocution is what one brings about by one’s speech act…Perlocutions have to do with the effect on the hearer of a speech act. Now, the primary role of the Holy Spirit, I believe, is to minister the Word. The application of salvation is first and foremost a matter of applying both the propositional content and the illocutionary force of the gospel in such a way as to bring about perlocutionary effects: effects that in this case include regeneration, understanding and union with Christ…The effectual call is best understood in terms of a conjunction of Word and Spirit, illocution and perlocution.
Does the Spirit then supervene on the Word? I can give no more than a qualified yes to this query, for while the Spirit’s call depends on the external call and is irreducible to it, it is nevertheless possible to have gospel preaching without regeneration. Advene would therefore be more accurate term. For the Spirit comes to the Word when and where God wills. The Spirit “advenes” on truth to make it efficacious.” (FT, 121, 122)
“To say that the internal call necessarily accompanies the external call would be to compromise God’s freedom.” (FT, 123)
There is a serious matter at stake here. These statements presuppose the Reformed Calvinist doctrines of total inability and unconditional election, or predestination, are biblical and true. Vanhoozer attempts to know more about how his doctrines work in practice through an “effectual call.” That’s fine. But this “dual call” theology completely ignores the content of the gospel as “good news” for all who hear it. Vanhoozer’s theology renders the content of the gospel message as “good news” null and void for his non-elect hearers. What Vanhoozer’s assessment boils down to here is that certain people are predestined to salvation and others are not. The Spirit therefore causes the necessary change of mind and heart in those God has chosen for salvation (i.e., “the elect”), and does nothing for the non-elect. Now here is the problem which implicates God in duplicity. Both the elect and the non-elect hear the same message. What is that message? It is a message of their salvation which makes no distinction between one sinner and another. Therefore, on Calvinism, God speaks words of salvation to myriads of people that he has no intent upon being faithful to. He offers and calls people to salvation whom he has no intention to save. The content of the message is the same. It is that you confess you are a sinner in need of salvation, acknowledge God’s love for you in sending Jesus to die in you place for your sins, believe in Jesus, trust in him, confess him as who he truly is – savior and Lord of your life. Those who believe this “good news” of their salvation are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So, what Vanhoozer’s theology does is pit an internal, “effectual call” against the content of the external call which explains to each sinner the way of salvation. But the non-elect cannot do any of this because God himself, the one calling them to salvation and faith in Christ, does not will that they be saved and therefore they cannot be saved. So, we have God being duplicitous and engaging in gross mockery. What does the external gospel call mean for the non-elect hearer of the gospel? It means what it says, but its meaning is prevented from taking effect in them. The problem is that the same words of the offer and promise of salvation are true for one person but not true for another. God speaks a false word that has no meaning for non-elect. This is hardly “God dealing with us communicatively in a manner that befits our nature” or his nature as a God of truth. This dual call theology is a theological device necessitated by Reformed Calvinist theological determinism.
The problem with Vanhoozer’s assessment is that he is seeking the efficacy of the call within the call itself. What is completely absent here is any discussion of the necessity and nature of the human response of faith to the Word and the content of the Word being a message of “good news.” Calvinism is deterministic while also being non-evangelical (i.e., Gk. euangelion, evangel, “good news”).
In contrast, the gospel call is a univocal call and message. It has a single content and purpose, that is to bring hope and salvation to all who hear it. The reason why some are not saved when they hear “gospel preaching” is that they themselves reject it. Many reject the message of the salvation accomplished for them by Jesus on the cross, while others who accept it by faith, the Spirit, who is at work in the preaching of the gospel in all who hear it, effects salvation in them because of their faith.
Furthermore, if we grant the Reformed Calvinist distinction in “calls” for the moment, why couldn’t God in his freedom have determined that the “internal” or “effectual call” would always accompany the “external call” and hinge uponthe dynamic of a response of faith on the part of the hearer to take effect? If this is the way God designed the way to become saved, then Vanhoozer’s problem is solved. But Vanhoozer does not allow the element of faith to enter in as a contingency with regard to salvation because he labors under the mistaken idea of “total depravity” or “total inability” and applies it to the dynamic and definition of faith also. If person’s can believe apart from God causing them to believe, then sinners could boast of a meritorious work in believing which would be to contribute to their own salvation. God gives faith to the elect subsequent to his regenerating them. For this reason Vanhoozer’s accounting of salvation is obviously missing any substantive treatment of faith as it is presented in Scripture as a critical element in the personal appropriation of salvation. But Vanhoozer cannot properly represent this biblical nature of faith and his Calvinist perspective on faith as merit or “a work” contributing to salvation is nowhere to be found in Scripture. It is one of the most serious distortions Calvinism has imposed upon on a proper biblical soteriology and Paul’s teaching on the role and nature of faith to salvation. A cursory review of Paul’s discussion of faith, grace and works proves this Calvinist understanding of faith to be wrong.
The Truth of the Gospel 