Vanhoozer writes,
“…triune authorial agency involves not only corporeal discourse but spiritual effects. The Son is the form and content of the divine discourse, the Spirit its energy and persuasive efficacy.” (RT, 366)
What is Vanhoozer’s theological basis for his doctrine of an “effectual call?” Does an “internally persuasive divine discourse” (RT, 365) version of an “effectual call” resolve the difficulties inherent in the underlying Calvinist soteriological doctrines of an eternal, sovereign decree, predestination, and unconditional election? Here we have more deterministic double-speak in the phrase “persuasive efficacy.” We sense Vanhoozer’s struggle to maintain the Calvinist deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty as the preordaining of “whatsoever comes to pass,” which refuses to accept the more biblical witness to God’s sovereignty which has God ruling and reigning in a genuine relationship of conditionality with his free creatures made in his image. We sense the struggle to preserve God’s required “success” in human beings and human affairs by claiming that due to sin (or prior to it) humans are no longer creatures that are the sole authors of any of their actions or have the ability of contrary choice. They are not even free to exercise faith in God, which is contrary to the overwhelming testimony of Scripture. Vanhoozer is attempting to grasp how God works in the world while presupposing the truth of theistic determinism. On that presupposition God’s communication has to actually “work” in the sense that it must always be “effective” or else God cannot accomplish anything in his world and his Word has indeed failed. But with this thinking Vanhoozer has backed himself into the determinist corner from which there is no rationally coherent escape. He has presupposed a definition of divine sovereignty along with a means of salvation (i.e., the “effectual call”) that requires absolute unconditionality. God causes all that occurs lest his sovereignty be threatened, and he “fail” at bringing the universe and people to his desired end. God chooses whom to save (i.e., unconditional election) and in whom he will effect salvation (i.e., effectual call, irresistible grace) because sin has caused persons to be unable to believe (i.e., total inability or depravity). It is a definition of God’s activity in the world and in persons that does not allow for any contingency, conditionality, or genuinely meaningful response to God by the creature or vice versa. We sense Vanhoozer’s problem in the following thought process from questions to deterministic conclusion. Vanhoozer writes,
“…how does divine communicative action actually work?” (RT, 364)
“So: is biblical discourse both authoritative and internally persuasive?” (RT, 364)
“Triune authorship…is an entirely different matter: when the Spirit speaks, people listen.” (RT, 364)
Vanhoozer is committed to the idea that God must always receive hiss predetermined result from his “divine communication.” But this is not the biblical portrayal of the divine / human interaction. The Spirit may speak, for instance in and through the gospel message, but many people do not listen. Why don’t they “listen?” On Calvinism, they are not among the elect. The people Vanhoozer is referring to above who “listen” are the elect whom God has determined to save, and therefore God causes them to “listen.” So, what is the explanation when there is not the divinely intended result of “listening” to God’s “divine communication?” The explanation for Vanhoozer is that there was no “effectual call” to supplement God’s “divine communication.” Therefore, the divine communication or expression of the desire and will of God and the actual effectiveness of it are dichotomized. They are separable phenomenon. God’s communication may or may not be accompanied by divine action to effect the communication. In reference to John 1:11, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him,” (CSB) Vanhoozer writes,
“The Author’s word enters in but not everyone receives it. We need an explanation for this apparent breakdown in divine-human communication.” (RT, 361)
Interesting. There is a “breakdown in divine-human communication?” How can this be when this “divine -human communication is supposed to be “effectual?” Also, why the word “apparent” here? Anyway, the explanation for Vanhoozer must be because God did not ordain them to receive Jesus despite the multitude of God’s communicative acts and their content to Israel. God works in accord with his predetermination of all things issuing forth in unconditional election and effectual calls.
Note that this need for an explanation betrays a misunderstanding of the thrust of the text in John 1 and the whole gospel of John. It betrays an injection of a “theological fear” regarding the “success” or “failure” of God to accomplish his purposes. It is based upon unwarranted ideas of required efficacy rooted in theistic determinism. “The Author’s word enters in…,” and by “Author” Vanhoozer means “the sovereign God,” and by that he means the God who has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass.” So not everyone receives the Author’s word. Has “the Author” lost his sovereign efficacy? This might be the case for Vanhoozer as a Calvinist. There has been a “breakdown” in the effectiveness of God’s word. Why does Vanhoozer say there is a “breakdown” in “divine-human communication? Well, he says this because he has always told us that when God speaks something happens according to what is spoken. God’s speech act is effectual. So why isn’t the explanation simply that God did not predetermine or cause the reception and belief? According to Vanhoozer, due to “total inability” people can’t receive God’s Word unless they are predetermined to do so. So, what is troubling Vanhoozer? Why does he think there is “breakdown” here? It must be because Vanhoozer knows that the context does not allow for his theistic determinism. It seems like Vanhoozer is admitting that God communicated with people with an intent that was not realized. But how can that be? Again, has God lost his sovereign control over mankind? What about God’s Authorial agency and persuasive efficacy? Something of this passage just does not fit with Calvinism’s theistic determinism. After all, Vanhoozer has told us,
“The divine Author, however, is Lord of his Wording and hearing alike. The Word made flesh, as stand-in for the Author, is that Voice in which presence I, and others who hear and respond to it, are ultimately consummated.” (RT, 361)
“…the divine Author ensures his Word’s efficacy by virtue of its own proper “energy,” its distinct and peculiar (perlocutionary) force: the Holy Spirit.” (RT, 362)
“How does divine communicative action actually work? To the extent that it is effective, is it a matter of its external authority or persuasive force, or both? (RT. 364)
“In sum: triune authorial agency involved not only corporeal discourse but spiritual effects. The Son is the form and content of the divine discourse, the Spirit its energy and persuasive efficacy. The Spirit’s ministry is ultimately the reason what God’s word invariably accomplishes the purpose for which it has been sent (Is. 55:11).” (RT, 366)
Note that Vanhoozer is reiterating that all this “divine communicative action” will only occur in those God has predestined to salvation. No one else will experience “the Spirit’s persuasive efficacy.” No one else can be saved. You need to think long and hard as to whether this comports with the biblical gospel as “good news.”
Recall Vanhoozer asked the following question.
“The Author’s word enters in but not everyone receives it. We need an explanation for this apparent breakdown in divine-human communication.” (RT, 361
Well, the explanation is clear from the Old Testament – it’s the people’s fault. The people were stiff-necked, rebellious, disobedient, and faithless (Ex. 32:9, 33:3, 33:5, 34:9; Deut. 9:6, 13. 10:16, 31:27; 2 Kings. 17:4; 2 Chron. 30:7-8, 36:11-16; Neh. 9:16-17; Jer. 19:15). The testimony of the New Testament is the same. Stephen rebukes the Jews saying, “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51, NIV) It is the people who refused to receive their savior or believe in Jesus. Paul clearly teaches this in Romans 10:3-4 and 14-21, where in verse 21 he quotes from Isaiah 65:2. Paul writes, “But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” (NIV) Jesus tells the Jews, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (Jn. 5:39-40, ESV)
Now, Vanhoozer will not consider modifying his soteriology accordingly, therefore we have a classic case of eisegesis – reading one’s adopted theological position into the text. But if one’s adopted theological position generates either incoherence, inconsistency, or contradictions with other statements in the context (which includes the whole cannon of Scripture), then surely that position is flawed and needs correction. Vanhoozer will read his Calvinist soteriology into the text no matter how much incoherence it produces within the text and context. So Vanhoozer proceeds to provide “an explanation” based upon his Calvinist soteriological presuppositions for the “apparent breakdown in divine-human communication.”
Now, Vanhoozer will not budge from his Calvinist soteriological doctrines. But is it possible that the text and context do not support these doctrines? Perhaps. If so, then I submit to you that the explanation is obvious in the text and context. Why is it that “his own people did not receive him [Jesus]” after so many centuries of “divine-human communication?” We should first note of course that it is correct that not everyone receives “the true light” who is Jesus Christ, but this is not because of a “breakdown in divine-human communication.” Jesus successfully entered into the world as “the true light that lightens everyone.” (Jn. 1:9, see also 1:16-18, 12:32, 15:22-25; Rom. 3:19; Col. 1:6, 19-20; Titus 2:11, 3:4; Matt. 24:14) God communicated quite successfully and men have heard the communication and hear it today. It is not a lack of communication, but a lack of reception of the communication that needs an explanation. Rather than search for an explanation for the “apparent breakdown in divine-human communication” Vanhoozer needs to look no further for the reason than the individual person’s rejection of what has been clearly communicated (Jn. 8:12, 24, 12:35, 36). It is not an inability to respond to God due to sin that necessitates a separate “effectual call” that occurs only in those chosen from before the foundation of the world, but a darkness that presides over man due to sin that necessitates the divine communication in the gospel. John makes this clear. “In him [Jesus] was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (Jn. 1: 4-5, ESV) In addition John states, “The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.” (1:9, ESV) If we read Jn. 1:11 in context we come across John’s summary observation about all that is to occur in detail throughout his gospel account – that “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” (Jn. 1:11, ESV) The fact of this non-reception is seen throughout the gospel, and given the history of Israel is hardly a breakdown in divine-human communication.[1] As far as the Jews are concerned as a group, i.e., “his own” and “his own people,” they have experienced a hardening due to their unbelief. Paul processes this theologically in Romans 9-11. As far as the individual is concerned, they either accepted or rejected Jesus. John records, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name…” (Jn. 1:12, ESV) The text associates the reception of the divine-human communication with believing. Some obviously received the communication. Why? Because persons received him and persons “believed in his name.” (Jn. 1:12, ESV) And all those who did so “he gave the right to become children of God.” (Jn. 1:12, ESV) So when they believe God makes them children of God, which has its rights! Now notice John’s following point. He clarifies that those who believed were “born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (Jn. 1:13, NIV) Now. “born of God” is not a reference to unconditional election or an effectual call. Rather, John wants to communicate that the traditional and expected, the natural and temporal, are not the means by which true spiritual life is obtained or operates. These believers are given the right to be called children of God because, having believed, it is God who gave them new birth. They have been spiritually renewed by God himself. This is in contrast to the controlling interests and common practices of the Jews who thought their history as having been given the law of Moses and that they were children of Abraham gave them privileged position with God as his children. In radical contrast, it is Jesus who has now been sent by God and therefore in those who believe in him it is God himself who acts in giving them spiritual renewal or “rebirth.” That is, upon believing they received new birth, or they were “born again” (Jn. 3:3, 5-8, 16-18). The nature of the “new birth” of those who believe would not be subject to or dictated by the Jewish traditional or human religious practices, rituals, or demands. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirt.” (Jn. 3:6, ESV) That is why Jesus tells Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn. 3:8, ESV) In effect Jesus is saying, “Nicodemus, this phenomenon is not under your control,” and yet Jesus Nicodemus’ spiritual new birth is up to him for Jesus says, “…you must be born again” (v.7) and also “…whoever believes in him [the Son of Man] may have eternal life.” (v. 15) Upon believing they were born spiritually, that is, “of God.” This event is spiritual in nature and therefore not subject to the expectations of the rulers, elders, scribes, and Pharisees – their involvement control, sanctions, regulations, or works performed to please God (cf. Acts 2:1-13, 3:11-4:31, esp. 15:1; Jn. 4:22-24: Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:1-11; Col. 2:8-23). If the Calvinist is going to presuppose that no one can even believe as a decision of their own will, then they must seek a reason for the faith people exhibit somewhere other than in the person themselves. Calvinists, of course, find this reason in an unconditional election. The only option is for God to give faith, which of course is only given to the elect. Hence, Vanhoozer’s “effectual call.” But the Bible nowhere teaches election unto faith or an effectual call. Such a view is incoherent with the vast majority of statements in John’s gospel. We run up against the same problems of exclusivity and limitation inherent in Calvinist theology – problems that are logically and morally incoherent with the overwhelming testimony of Scripture to substantially free human action and decision. Indeed, the immediate text in John speaks of the person’s believing. This response of faith as being of the person themselves is confirmed by the rest of the gospel and the teaching of Paul on faith. Now to presuppose that no one can obtain or exercise faith except that it be given as a gift by God is an unbiblical notion of the nature of faith. The gift of God is Jesus Christ. The design of God is that this gift is to be received simply by faith (Jn. 1:12) precisely because the nature of faith is the opposite of meritorious works. Faith is surrender and trust in the work of another. Hence it is the only appropriate response to a salvation that must be credited only to God. But to insist that faith is a work of God in a salvation that he grants only to those he predestined to save is a gross distortion of the nature of faith and turns the gospel as “good news” on its head.[2] It cannot be supported in Scripture.
We need go no further for confirmation of this than Jn. 3:16-18 where the reason why a person remains under condemnation is clearly stated. It is “because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (ESV) This is not simply information about the “spiritual profile” of those God has not chosen to save (i.e., the non-elect), but contains the very real, present, and existential challenge to believe precisely because it indicates that the only cause of remaining in condemnation is one’s unbelief.
Also, why does Vanhoozer interpret Jn. 1 as an “apparent” breakdown in divine-human communication? What does the label “apparent” reveal about Vanhoozer’s presuppositions? Does he feel he must explain this non-receptivity of divine-human communication in terms other than human rejection so God is not perceived as failing in his attempt to communicate? It is akin to Paul’s concern in Rom. 9:6. Paul, living through the Jewish rejection of their Messiah addresses the concern as to whether or not the “word of God has failed.” Paul knows it has not. Rather Paul views God’s word as having been rejected by God’s people; a rejection to which God responds with a “hardening.” God is able to genuinely respond, that is pursue a certain course that may otherwise not have been necessary, and also able in doing so, given his wisdom and foreknowledge, make that response serve the furtherance of his ultimate purposes. In order to correctly understand the present response of God to the rejection of his communication it is incumbent upon us to discern the true nature of any former communications and man’s responses to it. This would more accurately reflect that truly “dialogical” communicative action and response between a sovereign God and free human beings which Vanhoozer has so strenuously argued for. It would also give us a theology that is more coherent with the whole scope of Scripture.
Vanhoozer continues,
“I stated at the outset that the opposite of love is indifference. Someone who is indifferent “turns a deaf ear,” a phrase that strikingly depicts the futility of the speaker’s communicative action. Silence, an utter lack of communicative initiative, is another indication of indifference. The God depicted in Scripture is hardly indifferent, either as a speaker as a hearer. On the contrary, God is portrayed as engaging in dialogue with human persons – an active speaker and listener. God’s presence is neither spatial nor substantive but communicative. It is the presence of personal address and response: “Come now, let us reason together” (Is 1:18). I therefore propose to focus on God’s communicative action as the clue, and perhaps the key, to understanding the broader God-world relation.”[3]
From what we have already studied of the nature of Calvinism, these statements are astonishing and surely ring hollow in light of Vanhoozer’s doctrines of unconditional election and “effectual call.” Ultimately God is quite indifferent to all those upon whom he does not choose to “communicate effectively” by his Spirit. If Vanhoozer is going to claim that God is a God of communicative action, he should be able to delineate the precise content of what God is communicating and to whom he is communicating it. He is going to have to tell us whether the content of the communication reveals that God intends his “communicative action” to be for everyone. He is also going to have to tell us what the content of the message tells us about the nature and scope of God’s salvific intentions? What is this message of the “truth, goodness and beauty of Jesus Christ”? (RT, 384) To whom does it apply? He is going to have to explain how God’s call to salvation is a “communicative action” that is not indifferent for the vast number of persons he has predestined to eternal punishment. Vanhoozer is going to have to explain how this can genuinely be called “engaging in dialogue” or amounts to a meaningful “presence of personal address and response.” He is going to have to explain how it is that God is not indifferent and therefore is quite “impersonal” to the non-elect.
Vanhoozer provides an analogy in the life of Helen Keller as to how God’s “communicative acts can achieve a liberating effect.” (FT, 123) He tells of how Helen’s teacher came and spelled words into Helen’s hand but she failed to understand their meaning. “One day her teacher spelled the word water in one of Helen’s hands as she held the other under a spout, and the mystery of language was revealed. Helen later wrote…The living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!” (FT, 122) Vanhoozer then states, “Here is no impersonal physical force but a wonderful example of how communicative acts can achieve a liberating effect. Helen’s teacher, a miracle worker like the Holy Spirit, ministered the word and brought about understanding.” (FT, 122-123) The serious problem that Vanhoozer must address is why God determines to so liberate Helen Keller but refuses to liberate Helen’s brothers and sisters who are also equally blind, deaf and dumb. Vanhoozer goes on to state that “The so-called missions of the Son and Spirit…represent God’s attempt to reach out to human others in truth and love.” (FT, 168) This is hardly convincing in light of the fact that this same God is indifferent to many of the “human others” who need his liberating effect. To take such joy in the liberation of one and ignore the fact that the same God who liberates also assigns a myriad of souls to darkness, refusing to communicate with them, is to close one’s eyes to the other side of his problematic theology, the side of despair and hopelessness. Indeed, Vanhoozer himself is being indifferent! If God has determined to put one of your hands under the water but determines never to spell the Word into the other hand (never provide an “effectual call”), then despite what you experience under the spout, you are forever lost and without hope or God in this world and for eternity. The egregious nature of Calvinism is that God is calling you to salvation (i.e., to feel the water) but will never give you the Spirit (i.e., the word) to “consummate” your knowledge and experience. Indeed, this is a most impersonal God for these non-elect persons. Such an inconsistency in the character of God has serious implications and needs explanation. But Vanhoozer never does explain this, nor can he do so. All he can do is flee to “mystery” when he writes, “As to why some people do not respond to God, is a deep mystery; as to why some do, it is a deep grace.” (RT, 384, footnote 154) Vanhoozer has hit up against an essential problematic of his Calvinist theology – its moral and epistemological incoherence with respect to the divine nature.
Let us examine this logical and evangelistic problem more closely. That is, that the doctrines of determinism, exclusivity and salvific limitation cannot be preached in accord the biblical definition of the gospel as “good news” for those who hear it. Vanhoozer is forced to look at only one side of his deterministic God and declare him a God of “communicative” action for those privileged to receive the “effectual call” of the Spirit. But given that he or they don’t know who they are, the hearer needs to presume that they are the recipients of God’s election to salvation. That’s all they can do – presume. Calvinism is devoid of divine promise. Furthermore, when the preacher gives the same gospel message to the non-elect, which he cannot avoid doing, and if that “gospel” message is anything other than his Calvinist doctrines which are the full and final explanation of how a person is saved and which would be the honest expression of what the Calvinist preacher believes, he is being disingenuous to the non-elect. He is telling them about things that don’t apply to them as if they did.
In addition, the attempt at making an absolute deterministic sovereignty compatible with human freedom has no coherent logical and moral solution. The Calvinist’s universal divine causal determinism overwhelms any claims to meaningful human freedom and talk of dialogue, response, etc. Thus, the deterministic aspect of Calvinism reduces it to incoherence. One has to dismiss the logical and moral implications as “mystery” to continue to hold this position. Karl Barth makes this observation,
“Face to face with the absolute decree, if we would pursue the matter further, there remains only, as we have seen, the escape into mysticism or moralism, i.e., a self-chosen salvation, idolatry, the righteousness of works. The only fire which a knowledge of the decretum absolutum can kindle – if it does not extinguish all fires – is that of religion and not of faith.”[4]
And true to form as a Calvinist, Vanhoozer does just that. He flees to mystery and diminishes faith. His only attempt to answer the crucial question as to why God communicates by his Spirit “light,” hope,” “joy” and freedom to one soul and not another and what might be the content of such a “gospel” – the question that continually gnaws at us throughout Remythologizing Theology – is found in a footnote on page 384. It is perhaps the most revealing comment in the whole book for it speaks to the impossibility of attaining, biblical, logical and moral coherence from within the context of a decretal theological determinism. This determinism is what makes Vanhoozer’s compatibilist argument implausible. Vanhoozer ultimately concedes,
“As to why some people do not respond to God, it is a deep mystery; as to why some do, it is a deep grace.” (RT, 384)
But note that the answer to the “deep mystery” as to “why some people do not respond to God” is found in this very statement and in what Vanhoozer has been arguing all along. The reason that some do not respond to God is that they have not been predestined to receive the “deep grace” that “brings about a willing change of the human heart” (RT, 384), thus enabling and securing their positive “response” to God. Therefore, the “deep mystery” lies not in why some people do not respond to God, but in why God has determined that certain persons should “respond” and other should not “respond.” The issue is ultimately one that reflects upon the nature of God. The issue is ultimately what God is like in light of the claim that God works his salvific determinations in some and not others; that the scope of his salvific determinations are limited and not universal. This is not so much a “deep mystery” as it is a “deep biblical incoherence.” Vanhoozer’s problem lies in the incoherent depiction of the nature of God evidenced in the predestination of some and not others. This is especially troubling for all Vanhoozer’s talk about God in “communicative act,” desiring “communion” with his human creatures, etc. He has been trying to dispel the characterization of the Calvinist God as impersonal in what he does by determining people’s wills and desires to do his will “communicatively.” But we see that Vanhoozer’s theological difficulties exist at a still deeper level. The question of how God goes about accomplishing an absolute determinism does not address the deeper theological difficulties regarding why he predetermined what he has predetermined; why his determinations would be those as presented in Calvinist soteriology – that some should be unconditionally saved and others unconditionally damned. In this sense Vanhoozer has been pursuing a lop-sided irrelevance in telling us about a “communicative” God but failing to make application of this thesis to the non-elect. This is not an issue to be cavalierly dismissed by “mystery” of a “communicative” God only with respect to “those who ressond.” It reveals a theology that puts God at odds with himself as to his attributes of grace and love while not accurately representing the whole witness of the Scripture to the nature of God, man, and salvation. We shouldn’t label interpretive incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction as “mystery.”
Vanhoozer already presupposes a theological determinism that not only presents a how problem given the nature and freedom of man, but also a why problem regarding the nature of God as depicted in the Calvinist soteriological scheme.
Vanhoozer has argued throughout that God effectually calls persons, changing their wills and enabling them to respond to him. Without this effectual activity of the Spirit they cannot respond to him. If they could respond on any other grounds (i.e., a self-authored action) what then is the sense of an effectual call. The general or gospel call accompanied by the Spirit would suffice with the person either accepting or rejecting the offered salvation. In contrast to Vanhoozer’s “effectual call” I maintain that the Bible teaches a single gospel (“good news”) call to sinners to believe in Christ and be saved. And while I affirm that only the Spirit effects salvation (Jn. 1:13, 3:5-8), he does so in accord with the precise content of the proclamation of the gospel message as “good news” and summons the hearer to respond in faith, There is no effectual call according to a deterministic, unconditional predestination as to who will and who will not receive salvation. There is a distinctly spiritual event in regeneration that is effected by the Holy Spirit in whoever believes the message. Yet the content of the message and the nature of faith reveal that this salvation message can be rejected in unbelief. Thus, it is conditional and not unconditional. And any definition of a doctrine of election must remain coherent with the biblical data that salvation is conditioned upon the hearer’s faith response to the gospel. Vanhoozer must take care to more properly incorporate the biblical teaching on the nature of faith[5] which has implications upon the nature of the human condition despite the Fall, but also in consequence of it. The nature of the human condition as a consequence of the Fall is marked by mankind’s complete inability to remedy his lost condition and restore his severed relation with God. As such, God alone, in mercy and compassion, needs to provide a way of salvation. The nature of the human condition despite the Fall entails God requiring the simple response of faith in His saving work, which accords with the nature of God as just (as well as merciful and compassionate), and is the conditional means for the sinner to appropriate the salvation wrought on their behalf. This is all that is meant by human freedom in soteriology, but it is a genuine freedom nonetheless. In other words, I reject on biblical grounds any theology that results in God being quite indifferent to those he has not chosen for salvation and therefore does not intend to provide the necessary effect in them so that they are willing and able to respond to him and be saved. Why does Vanhoozer say it is a “mystery” as to why some people do not respond to the “general call?” According to Vanhoozer it’s perfectly clear. God does not desire or will that they respond. He does not produce an “effectual call” in them. Neither is there any recourse of simply trusting in Christ for salvation. There is nothing one can do. Thus, in effect, God determines who it is that will be a “faithful” “communicant” of “the truth, goodness and beauty of Jesus Christ” and who will not. He has an elect whose salvation is unconditional with respect to the person themselves; based not on any “response” of the person but solely upon God’s determination to bring about that “response” in the person he has determined will be saved. Despite Vanhoozer’s insistence to the contrary, we fail to see how this is not a “monologic,” “causal” relation between God and certain persons that has a definite “strategic” aspect to it. And even though the “instrument” that brings about the change in a person is the person of the Holy Spirit the scheme ignores the biblical testimony to human self -identity, individuation, and freedom, not a self that can save itself, but one that can receive the salvation provided for it. We cannot bring about what will save us. God did that in the plan of salvation in Christ. But as creatures made in the image of God, that is, persons who retain a capacity to will within the confines set by God, we are therefore called to exercise faith in that plan of salvation in Christ as the sole condition (sola fide) upon which the Spirit effects salvation. I submit to you that this is the biblical witness to the nature of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the reciprocal. personal interaction between God and man at the point of the gospel where the sinner in the presence of the Holy Spirit is called on to exercise of faith to appropriate that saving work for themselves.
[1] The verses in John about “receiving” things from the Father (i.e., 3:27, 6:37, 39, 44-45) should all be viewed in the context of Jesus’ unity with the Father, as having been sent from the Father “above,” and his challenge to the Jews who claimed this Father God as their own. Note the emphasis on what the Father has sent “from above,” being born “of the spirit” and the challenge to believe as related to “knowing” the Father. This is a distinctly contextual Jewish historical theme running through John’s gospel. It sits in a definite Jewish religious context addressing specific Old Testament revelational theological and Messianic concerns. As such the main point is either overlooked or the various verses are taken out of this unique context and misinterpreted as teaching a doctrine of unconditional election. Such makes John’s gospel to be logically and morally incoherent. Rather, it is a record of the conflict between Jesus and “his own people” (the Jews), centered around Jewish claims about God as their “Father” and their unbelief. Compare Jn. 3:2 with verses 8-13. Also compare Jn. 3:27 with Matt. 21:25. Note the Father/Jesus acknowledgement theme and the Spirit /Life relationship theme throughout John – 5:24, 38, 40-47; 6:62-63; 7:28; 8:19, 39-47, 55; 9:31, 33; 15:21-25; 16:3.
[2] Calvinists will point to Jn. 1:13 in support of an “effectual call” or prior regeneration based upon unconditional election. The verse is the continuation of verse 12 which reads, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God…” And verse 13 continues, “…who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” In the immediate context of the unique status that “his own people” (v.11) – the Jews – served in God’s salvation history through their divine election as the “people of God,” and given the universal nature of faith and salvation taught throughout the whole gospel, this verse is coherently interpreted as pointing out the spiritual nature of the event of becoming a child of God. It presents the same flesh/spirit contrast that Jesus stressed with Nicodemus in chapter 3. It does not say anything about certain people having been regenerated due to an unconditional election and receiving an “effectual call” evidenced by the person believing. This is to stand the gospel on its head and render incoherent the challenges and invitations to believe and the culpability for unbelief spoken of throughout John. Granted, faith in and of itself is not sufficient for regeneration in that only God, by the Spirit can regenerate a sinner – but that is just the point. God does a spiritual work in the believer, and he makes good on his promise to save when the sinner believes. Again, faith in and of itself is not sufficient for regeneration, but it is the necessary condition that God determined for regeneration; and John’s gospel speaks of it as a free decision of the individual made possible by the presence of the Spirit in accord with the content of the message of “good news” to the hearer. The point is that it is God who is active in salvation when one believes, and therefore it is a spiritual as opposed to an event under the control of others or any human capacity. No one can be saved without his plans, purposes, promises, active initiative, drawing and consummation of the saving work of Christ and the Spirit. But the reception of all these saving elements hinges upon the person having believed in Jesus. It is God who regenerates those who believe. So, it is a spiritual happening as opposed to the list John gives, that is, “not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.” Therefore, “the will of man” here should not be confused with the free will decision of the sinner. John’s gospel will not allow us to conclude that faith is simply an evidence of a prior unconditional election and effectual regeneration. The point of verse 13 is that what happens upon believing happens as an act of God. God has determined to act in response to faith to produce a distinctly spiritual birth in the one believing. The primary contrast is with the normal understanding of a physical birth. Being born of God is not to be born physically (“not of blood”), or by physical intention (“the will of the flesh”), or simply by marriage (“the will of man”). (See Merrill C. Tenney, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:32.) An additional contrast involves the spiritual heritage of the Jew who presumed their standing as “children of God” rested upon their human descent (Abraham), device (the Law) or privilege (“the people of God”). See Grant R. Osborne who stresses the prior activity of God in regeneration but concludes that “God is an “equal opportunity” convicter who, in drawing all to himself, makes it possible to make a true decision to accept or reject Christ. That decision is not possible without God’s drawing power but it is a free moral decision without irresistible coercion. Election is of course a biblical doctrine, but it is not absolute, i.e., apart from man’s decision” (257). – Grant R. Osborne, “Soteriology in the Gospel of John” in The Grace of God, The Will of Man: The Case for Arminianism, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 243-260.
[3] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 90.
[4] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.2, ch. VII, “The Election of God” (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 160.
[5] Vanhoozer’s treatment of faith is minimal, strained, and seems inconsistent. As far as I could tell there are only a handful of references to faith in Remythologizing Theology. In the footnote on page 279 he states, “God declares those who place their faith in Christ forgiven and directs and enables them to live accordingly by having the Spirit minister the gospel to them.” This divine declaration of forgiveness sounds conditional to me – “…those who place their faith in Christ…” He can also state that, “The consistent teaching of the New Testament is that right relatedness to God depends upon right relatedness to Jesus Christ. He who sees, believes in, and knows Jesus sees, believes in, and knows the Father (Jn. 14:9; 12:44; 8:9)…” (RT, 283) But then on page 287 Vanhoozer states, “…the Spirit effects union with Christ by the gift of faith:…” Here he calls faith a gift that is the result of an “effectual call.” And again, “The Holy Spirit effects our union with Christ by giving us the faith to lay hold of him (so Calvin)…Faith is thus “something we do while it happens to us…Believing…is something we do as the Spirit renders us believers.” (RT, 290) We wonder what could be the precise meaning of the phrase “something we do,” when Vanhoozer also clearly says, “the Spirit renders us believers.” Reformed Calvinists talk about “those who believe in Christ” (RT, 286), but it is difficult not to construe this “believing” as anything other than a causal result of their election to salvation. “Those who believe” aren’t involved at all in their “believing.” Thus, the description is disingenuous. “Those who believe in Christ” should be “Those who are among the elect whom God causes to believe in Christ.” That can and should be what is said by the Calvinist. That is, the causal, instrumental sense of the divine/human “relationship” is certainly prominent in Calvinism. I submit that there is no biblical support for the idea that faith is a gift given on the basis of unconditional election, or that the “Spirit renders us believers.” In Eph. 2:8 the “it” that is “the gift of God” refers to the whole scope of God’s saving work, not faith.
The Truth of the Gospel 