Vanhoozer writes,
“…we have arrived at the highest task of the theological interpretation of Scripture: to interpret “so that they may believe and have life.” (FT, 305)
Here Vanhoozer is alluding to John 20:31. But Vanhoozer’s quote, “so that they may believe and have life” is lacking the context of John 20:31 which states “…these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” However one takes the textual variant in the phrase “that you might believe” or “that you may continue to believe,” John’s testimony is to a universally inclusive salvation, that is individually direct and presupposes everyone’s possibility and responsibility to exercise faith. John makes this clear throughout his gospel – “that all may believe” (Jn. 1:7), “…so that the world may believe” (Jn. 17:21), “…so that you may believe” (Jn. 11:15), “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (Jn. 9:35), and the continually repetitious “whosoever believes” becomes the rule regarding the inclusive scope of the salvific will of God in Christ. We have this confirmed in several statements of Jesus that presuppose the contingency, conditionality, possibility and potentiality that form the grounds of moral responsibility for one’s response of faith or unbelief. These statements affirm a dynamic libertarian freedom not a static theistic determinism. When interpreting John’s gospel on sound hermeneutical principles, one must conclude that the faith response and eternal destines of people are not predestined by God. What Jesus says is incoherent with an “effectual call.” He says, “…whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn. 3:18), “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey (“rejects” NIV) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (Jn. 3:36), “…unless you believe that I am he you will die in you sins” (Jn. 8:24), “…yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (Jn. 5:40), “The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day” (Jn. 12:48), “…but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Lk. 7:30).
In contrast to the biblical universalism, moral responsibility, personal contingency, and spiritual potentiality inherent in these pronouncements, in Vanhoozer’s theology, the “they” in the phrase “that they may believe and have life,” are the elect. If interpreted in accord with Calvinist determinism, in all these statements Jesus would only be broadcasting the fact that there are elect people and a non-elect people and the evidence that distinguishes them is that the elect believe. Thus, “whoever does not obey” is not among the elect (at least at that time); “the one who rejects me and does not receive my words” is not among the elect (at least at that time); those who refused to be baptized by John and “rejected the purpose of God for themselves” were not among the elect (at least at that time). So, Jesus is simply informing the readers of the evidences of election and non-election. He has no intention of suggesting it could be otherwise for any of these people for their response has been predetermined from eternity past. This of course is a very strange, empty and static way of interpreting these texts. But it is the interpretation that is ultimately forced upon the Calvinist interpreter by their theological presuppositions. In a manner that distorts the plain meaning of these statements, the idea of an elect and non-elect must lay behind each confrontation. This turns the dynamic of potentiality and challenge to believe that is the plain meaning of these “divine speech-acts,” into a static, informational, sub-message about the signs of election and non-election. It is an example of Calvinist eisegesis. For instance, Vanhoozer has interpreted John 20:31 which states “…these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” to mean “…these things are written so that you may be informed that there is an elect that will certainly receive an “effectual call,” believe and have life in his name.” This is to turn John’s gospel challenges and invitations to believe on their head. It is hardly to interpret “so that you may believe…” as the gospel of John would define “you.” John’s “you” refers to all persons (“whosoever”).
Moreover, the ambiguity of the above quote causes us to reiterate what I have just pointed out above. If it is “the highest task of the theological interpretation of Scripture: to interpret “so that they may believe and have life,” what then is the content of that interpretation of Scripture? What then is Vanhoozer’s message that “they may believe and have life?” What would he say? Also, who are “they?” Obviously, according to Vanhoozer “they” are only the elect, for only the elect will receive an “effectual call,” will believe and have life. But what are the implications of interpreting Scripture in the manner “so that they, the elect, may believe and have life?” It is to reach the interpretive conclusion that we have no knowledge or assurance as to whom this message of “good news” applies. It is to interpret so as to conclude that we have no knowledge or assurance as to whom God has predestined to receive this “effectual call,” believe and have life. In other words, “May you or I or any other sinner believe and be saved and have life?” The best answer Vanhoozer can give according to his interpretation of Scripture is, “Perhaps.” Vanhoozer has interpreted Scripture so that “they” remains an unknown. This of course will affect the content of his message and transform it into something beyond biblical recognition.
Furthermore, as E. D. Hirsch argues, it is of the nature of verbal meaning to apply in an identical sense to all who read or hear it. Hirsch writes,
“…the noteworthy feature of verbal meaning is it supra-personal character. It is not an intentional object simply for one person, but for many – potentially for all persons. Verbal meaning is, by definition, that aspect of a speaker’s “intention” which, under linguistic conventions, may be shared with others.”[1]
What better vehicle for the communication of God to all people of their salvation than through the Word of God in the flesh and the Word of God written. If God desires to communicate, to establish communion with “others,” and indeed consummate lives, then God’s communicative, speech-acts, by virtue of their verbal meaning, apply to all people. Vanhoozer seems to concur when he writes,
“A theological truth claim will be a statement about the meaning of the whole and as such will matter to everyone. Such a claim must involve propositions (objectivity) and passion (subjectivity). A theological truth claim will ultimately be about the Word of God and the difference it makes to human being.” (FT, 341)
So theological truth claims “will matter to everyone.” But in what way? To tell us of the division of humanity into an elect and non-elect with all its implications for both the ignorance of and final eternal destinies? And note the impersonal universal term “human being” in the phrase “the difference it makes to human being.” Granted, his meaning is to speak about human’s collectively and how the Word of God makes a difference to our “being,” that is, in the world of human beings. But Vanhoozer, like all Calvinists, tend towards this ambiguous impersonal language because they are not sure what God has instore in terms of the salvation of each human being. His Calvinist determinism forces him to be guarded in his language. He cannot speak assuredly about each human being due to their unknown predetermined destiny.
Vanhoozer also states that, “The God of the Christian gospel is the Father, Son, and Spirit working in perfect communion for an even greater communion” but we wonder as to who will be allowed into that “greater communion” and upon what basis. In that God “makes common” the Father’s communion with the Son, this would seem to imply that it is the Father’s intent that anyone may receive this divine “communion.” Is that what Vanhoozer intends to say? Would that be Vanhoozer’s message? What words would be used to communicate to unbelievers this commonality of the Father’s communion with the Son that is made so “freely,” and to proclaim “God’s love” as his “active disposition to communicate the Father’s life-giving communion with the Son to others in the Spirit?” Would these words have personal reference and application to every hearer? Or would Vanhoozer’s words be consistent with his theology of an exclusive “effectual call?” But if that were the case, what meaning would such words have for each hearer? They would be empty of promise, assurance and personal application. They would remain generic, distant, and impersonal. Out of all “humanity,” who gets to receive this “ultimate hope in life?” Whether you are the object of this “love of God” which is “God’s active disposition to communicate the Father’s life-giving communion with the Son to others” hinges upon your being unconditionally elected by this same God and thereby designated to receive an “effectual call” in addition to a “general call.” The “general call,” no matter what is being said, may be completely inapplicable to you as one of the non-elect. Because of the inherent exclusivity and limitation the doctrine of an “effectual call” places on those who can be saved, the question as to whom Vanhoozer refers when he speaks about God’s desire to communicate, commune with and consummate “heroes” gnaws at us throughout his book. We just don’t have him making all this “love of God,” “life-giving communion” and “ultimate hope in life” applicable to anyone in particular. It never becomes “good news” that can be embraced personally. It never speaks or applies to anyone in particular. It only hangs at the level of information about a nebulous class of people that are “the elect.” These presumably good purposes of God seem to pass over and around us as we read, having no personal dimension, not knowing if we are included in them. There is a vague generality to them that causes anxiety in us that we might not be one of this and of course negates this idea with his theology of an “effectual call.” those predestined to receive this “effectual call.” By using the phrase “the human creature” Vanhoozer seems to give the impression that it is God’s desire to be in communion with all his human creatures, but Vanhoozer does not confirm this. An effectual call, by definition, is exclusive of the non-elect. Therefore we cannot avoid the logical conclusion that he really does not mean all his human creatures. There is a conspicuous lack of commitment by Vanhoozer to clarify just who these “others,” these “human heroes,” “the human creature” and those whose life story gets “taken up into the perfect life of Jesus” are. He is ambiguous here, but obviously they are only the unknown elect who are to be “effectually called.” Hence, Vanhoozer’s “gospel” as marked by unconditionality transcends the involvement of the individual person as an individual and is therefore bound to be vague and ambiguous as to whom the promises of this “gospel” apply and how the message can be appropriated. Vanhoozer himself does not know and therefore cannot say. What then is the gospel message? For the Reformed Calvinist who is not about to question the biblical validity of his basic deterministic theological presuppositions (i.e., God’s eternal comprehensive decree ordaining “whatsoever comes to pass,” sovereignty defined as absolute determinism, election as unconditional, the gospel as essentially an “effectual call,” the impossibility of a faith response from sinners as the sole the authors of their act of believing, etc.), the gospel becomes a vague theological statement without personal application. Vanhoozer states, “This is the gospel: that God freely and graciously decides to communicate something of what he is to what he is not.” Given an “effectual call,” which presupposes an unconditional election, how is that “good news” for anyone in particular? Is this really the gospel? Vanhoozer’s “communicative” approach may be a sophisticated way of expressing some aspect of what God is doing in the world. But what makes this biblical “good news?” Is it simply the fact that God had the prerogative to do nothing at all, but in his mercy and grace determined to save some? Is that the gospel? I have explained that this falls short of the biblical gospel which is universal in scope. Vanhoozer’s attempt to describe God’s activity within the paradigms of linguistic and literary theory may ease the theological pain from within his deterministic perspective. But for those of us who do not embrace these deterministic theological presuppositions because we do not believe they are a legitimate interpretation of the scriptures, Vanhoozer’s problems run deeper and cannot be summarily dismissed. One of those problems is bringing this gospel home to the individual so that they, the hearer, may know that God loves them and Jesus died for them and they can be saved. The gospel is not the bare, static information that “God freely and graciously decides to communicate something of what he is to what he is not,” which given the theology of an “effectual call” may or may not include you. Vanhoozer writes, “The love of God is God’s active disposition to communicate the Father’s life-giving communion with the Son to others in the Spirit.” If the hearer of the “good news” cannot know that the “others” include themselves then there is no good news for them and any talk of God’s love rings hollow.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] E. D. Hirsch Jr., Validity In Interpretation, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 218.
The Truth of the Gospel 