In light of his doctrine of an “effectual call” instead of using the phrase “convincingly persuades” shouldn’t Vanhoozer say “irresistibly persuades,” “effectually persuades” or “unfailingly persuades?” The word “convincingly” here has the connotation of the absolute surety of God’s “persuasion.” What Vanhoozer really has in mind by this “persuasion” that is so “convincing” is the “effectual call.” It expresses the sovereign side of his compatibilism. Note, the sense of the phrase to “convincingly persuade” is somewhat redundant and awkward. In fact, as Vanhoozer means it deterministically it is an oxymoron. The word persuasion implies non-determinism. When one person seeks to persuade another there is no guarantee that you will do so “convincingly.” The other person may either become convinced or they may not. In fact, in order to use the word “persuasion” to describe what is transpiring, the person being persuaded has to retain the real possibility of remaining unconvinced or able to reject the argument of the persuader.
So, what Vanhoozer must mean by “convincingly persuades” is his theological doctrine of an “effectual call” or a deterministic action of God. The use of these words and the discussion as Vanhoozer has crafted it is disingenuous. “Persuasion” implies the ability of the one being persuaded to think or act otherwise. But this is not what Vanhoozer’s doctrine of an “effectual call” or “irresistible ‘grace’” allows. An “effectual call” or “irresistible ‘grace’” is by definition a unilateral action of God that cannot be of the nature of persuasion for the person has no alternative than to be “persuaded.” If the person cannot do otherwise, that is, refuse the communicative act of God, then it is not persuasion that is happening, it is rather a form of compulsion, for the result is unfailingly determined by the persuader. Vanhoozer teeters on the edge of confessing this as the result of his theology, for when he attempts to draw the conclusion of “dual agency” he can only speak of it “albeit hesitatingly.”
In Vanhoozer’s theology there are the elect and the non-elect. The elect will be saved by the effective activity of God in and through them. The non-elect are passed by. But there exists in the phenomenon of human language the concept of the “in-between.” This linguistic phenomenon is born of the reality of our situation. Due to the very nature of being human persons there are words that reflect the realities of conditionality and contingency, potentiality and possibility, choice and decision as opposed to absolute fixity and determination of all things. “Persuasion” is one of those words that confirm these realities. Such words confirm what it means to be a human person. Calvinists use many of these words inappropriately. “Persuasion” implies the real possibility of contrary choice. This is not a possibility given the doctrine of unconditional election, effectual call or irresistible ‘grace.’ Therefore, the use of the word “persuasion” is inappropriate to wedge some form of human “freedom” into a theological determinism. If God is truly involved in persuading, then the outcome cannot be determined. The person being persuaded either becomes convinced of the point being made, remains unconvinced for the present time, or simply rejects what the other person is saying. These are the types of responses of the human heart and mind so often recorded in Scripture in relation to God’s communication and revelation. So, what is the Calvinist theologian’s greatest fear? He fears that God’ sovereignty is in jeopardy if he does not exercise an all-encompassing, absolute control over all things, including the human will. One gets the sense that the Calvinist is the custodian of God’s glory, and that glory is secured by the exaltation of God’s control to the superlative degree. They confuse glory with control and control with God’s ability to rule and reign so as to unfailingly bring to pass his plans and purposes for men and this world. God is not less sovereign for creating man with capacities of freedom and decision and engaging him accordingly. And the biblical depiction of God’s sovereignty does not require that man ultimately do what God compassionately desires for them, especially regarding each individual’s eternal destiny. By definition the person may refuse to be persuaded. But this is not the nature of an “effectual call” or an “irresistible grace” upon a person. To “irresistibly persuade” is a conceptual contradiction.
The Truth of the Gospel 