Vanhoozer writes,
“The divine Author is committed to the integrity of the world he has made and the characters he has placed there: “God’s sovereign plan includes a covenant commitment to every creature, to fulfill the role of that creature.” God as Author is not a coercive cause pushing against our freedom in a manner that interferes with (or intervenes in) our heroic integrity. On the contrary, the divine Author is an interlocutor who interrogates and tests our freedom, consummating our existence in the process. My capacity for self-determination therefore has its ground not in my own (monological) existence but rather in the potentially infinite dialogue with the Author God who alone calls me into being and who consummates my life and gives it meaning. It is in response to the dialogical situations that comprise my life, especially my dialogical relation to God, that I exercise the freedom to realize my own voice-idea.
There is thus no contradiction between Authorial determination of a character’s “idea” and the character’s own self-determination. Freedom as the power of the hero’s self-determination should by no means be confused with the power of self-authoring, however. It is one thing to realize one’s essential nature, quite another to make oneself over into something essentially different. Heroes act according to their natures, freely pursuing what they desire, but they lack the ability so to orient themselves that they can change their natures and desire something entirely different. From a theological point of view, then, freedom of self-determination falls short of genuine Christian freedom, namely, the freedom to say “Yes” to the divine call. It is for this later freedom that the Son and Spirit set us free, enabling us to correspond to the Author’s own voice-idea for humanity revealed and incarnated, in Jesus Christ.” (RT, 336-337, italics mine)
Why critique Vanhoozer’s works? Because of passages like this that I would describe not only as cryptic, but also theologically obtuse, that is, “thick” with Calvinism camouflaged in fancy literary terminology. What Vanhoozer has said here using sophisticated literary vocabulary is just an iteration of his Calvinist doctrines of total inability and the effectual call. My fear is that the less discerning reader might buy into the theology being propounded here. Let’s ask some question about Vanhoozer’s thesis.
In light of a doctrinal scheme that predestines a multitude to eternal damnation, how is the divine Author “committed to the integrity of the world and the characters he has placed there?” What is this “integrity?” What is a “covenant commitment to every creature, to fulfill the role of that creature?” Does this include the fact that the “role” of a multitude of human creatures is that they should suffer eternal damnation? Why? How is it that Vanhoozer can claim that “God as Author is not a coercive cause” but an “interlocutor who interrogates and tests our freedom, consummating our existence in the process” when the result of that “interrogation” determines what we will desire and will to do and that same God “consummates” the existence of some to salvation and most to hell? According to Vanhoozer God is “committed to the integrity” of “the characters” he has placed in the world. What does that mean? Given Vanhoozer’s Reformed Calvinism it means that the non-elect are “called into being” by God who “consummates their lives and gives them meaning” by predestining them to eternal torment. How are we to even process this conglomeration of theological cross-purposes? Of course, predestination to eternal death is not in store for Vanhoozer, for he has been “enabled” to “correspond to the Author’s own voice-idea for humanity revealed and incarnated in Jesus Christ.” His “role” as a “creature” is a fortunate one. He obviously has been granted a reorientation of his nature so that he desires “something entirely different.” He has been granted the “freedom” to say “Yes” to the divine call. He has been enabled to do so while not being able to do otherwise.
Vanhoozer’s “self-determination” refers to the decisions and actions of humans in their total depravity. They cannot be “self-authoring” because “Author” has been used throughout by Vanhoozer to mean God’s sole, unchangeable determination of what everything and everyone is to be and do. So how is it that human being can be self-determining but not self-authoring? If you find this confusing, that because it is. Vanhoozer is trying to create a scenario in which God determines all and yet he doesn’t deny human freedom. It is just not credible to state that there is “no contradiction between Authorial determination of a character’s “idea” and “the character’s own self-determination.” The only way we might be able to understand this is that “self-determination” seems to refer to the decisions a person makes in everything but their eternal destiny. They do not and cannot decide their eternal destiny because they are totally unable to do so (i.e., total depravity). Therefore, they can be “self-determining” but not “self-authoring.” Totally depraved sinners “lack the ability so to orient themselves that they can change their natures and desire something entirely different.”[1]
I disagree with the premise here of “total inability.” Responding to the “good news” of your salvation does not require one to change their nature. The gospel comes to us in our nature as sinners. That is the whole point of the gospel as “good news” for sinners. Moreover, the Spirit also accompanies the message so as to minister God’s presence to the sinner in the hearing of the gospel. As such, the sinner, under the conviction and comfort of the Spirit and the Word may believe. This is what the Bible teaches. But the sinner may also reject this grace of God to them. The non-Calvinist insists that the Spirit is at work in everyone hearing the gospel message. The Spirit is always present in the proclamation of the gospel message to the degree that it is spoken in truth as necessary to convict the sinner on the basis of what is heard and enable him to respond in faith. Due to the Spirit’s presence confirming the content of the message unbelievers are without excuse to accept the gospel as applicable to themselves and to put their trust in Christ for salvation. Given the distinct role of the Spirit in accord with the content of the message and the nature of faith as non-meritorious, it is the sinner himself that must ultimately believe. And likewise, especially given this context of grace of Word and Spirit, it is the sinner himself that is responsible for remaining in unbelief. It is they themselves that decide to reject their salvation. The reason they reject it is rooted in their own stubborn will. They are said to be resisting or rejecting the work of the Spirit of God (Acts 7:51, Lu. 7:30; Jn. 6:63; 16:8-9; Heb. 10:29, also 6:4). Hence, their condemnation will be just. The point to note is the Bible does not speak of anyone’s individual salvation or faith response being predetermined. To propose that there is a limited number of elect people that are predestined to salvation and therefore effectually called to faith is unbiblical.
What Vanhoozer likely means by these words is that the sinner needs a change in nature (i.e., regeneration) so that they can “orient” themselves aright. So, we might conclude that a “character” can “self-determine” everything but believing in the gospel. This, after all, is the teaching of Calvinism. Eternal salvation or damnation must be Authorially determined. It must be the result of God’s election which is unconditional and the work of the Spirit which is irresistible or effectual. But then Vanhoozer states, that “self-determination” can only occur in “the potentially infinite dialogue with the Author God who alone calls me into being and who consummates my life and gives it meaning.” It appears that even “self-determination” ultimately is Authorial determination. We are back to the problem of an inevitable theistic determinism. As fortunate as one might be to be so acted upon by “the divine Author as an interlocutor…consummating our existence,” and as much as Vanhoozer can speak of “heroic integrity,” “our freedom,” “potentially infinite dialogue with the Author God,” all this reduces to the “Authorial determination of a character’s “idea,”” and that means universal divine causal determinism. Ultimately persons are eradicated from this whole process of receiving salvation as creatures with genuine freedom. Indeed, the person may have been “eradicated” from salvation in toto. Where has the “good news” gone? Given Calvinism, it too has been eradicated.
Vanhoozer’s passage above amounts to God’s action upon people according to the Reformed Calvinist “doctrines of grace.” This is what Vanhoozer means to express using literary and speech-act theory. We have here typical “Vanhoozerian” concepts and expressions which correspond to Reformed Calvinist doctrine. Here are some examples.
1) Expression: “The divine Author is committed to the integrity of the world he has made and the characters he has placed there: “God’s sovereign plan includes a covenant commitment to every creature, to fulfill the role of that creature.”
“…the Author’s own voice-idea for humanity…”
1) Doctrine: The eternal divine decree. From all eternity God has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass.” Everything that occurs has been predetermined and caused by God to occur as it does. This includes everyone’s thoughts, desires, attitudes, actions, and their eternal destinies.
2) Expression: “…Authorial determination of a character’s “idea…”
“…the Author God who alone calls me into being and who consummates my life and gives it meaning.”
2) Doctrine: Unconditional election and limited atonement. God has unconditionally elected a limited number of people to be saved. All others are assigned to be eternally condemned and punished for their sin.
3) Expression: “Freedom as the power of the hero’s self-determination should by no means be confused with the power of self-authoring, however. It is one thing to realize one’s essential nature, quite another to make oneself over into something essentially different. Heroes act according to their natures, freely pursuing what they desire, but they lack the ability so to orient themselves that they can change their natures and desire something entirely different.
3) Doctrine: Total depravity or total inability. This includes an inability to believe the gospel and exercise faith in Christ. Only the elect have their natures changed via their regeneration and being caused to believe by God himself and God alone.
4) Expression: “Freedom of self-determination falls short of genuine Christian freedom, namely, the freedom to say “Yes” to the divine call. It is for this later freedom that the Son and Spirit set us free, enabling us to correspond to the Author’s own voice-idea…”
4) Doctrine: All sinners, being totally depraved, cannot respond to God. Therefore, God effectually calls only his elect so that they desire to come to Christ and be saved.
So Vanhoozer has developed a sophisticated way of stating that men and women as sinners will do what they most desire (“self-determination”). For the elect those desires are shaped in “dialogical relation to God,” a process which ultimately issues forth in “Christian freedom.” “Christian freedom” is “the freedom to say “Yes” to the divine call. It is this freedom, the freedom of regeneration, that causes a positive reaction to being effectually called, which leads to salvation. Vanhoozer describes all this as, “to correspond to the Author’s own voice-idea for humanity revealed and incarnated, in Jesus Christ.” Only the elect are “enabled” and “set free” by the Son and the Spirit to this “correspondence” to the Author’s own “voice-idea for humanity.” Ultimately God gives each of us our desires and we cannot desire or act otherwise. If he chooses not to grant the non-elect good desires they act according to their natures, never being able to say “Yes” to the divine call. If they could “say “Yes” to the divine call” they would be “self-authoring.” But as totally depraved they have no power of “self-authoring.” Obviously, in light of the doctrine of an effectual call, this change of nature to “desire something entirely different” occurs only for those so determined by God to receive that effect from the divine call. Hence, the doctrine of the “effectual call.” But, in order for the elect to be able to respond to the effectual call, they have to be regenerated first. They have to have their natures changed. Regeneration by the Spirit changes their nature and enables them to respond to the effectual call to salvation. This leads to the nonsensical conclusion of Calvinism that the sinner has to be saved before they can be saved.
Hence, Vanhoozer maintains that the Bible teaches that men are not “self-determining” with respect to their eternal destiny. But we would ask how Vanhoozer makes any sense out of the “whosoevers” throughout the gospel of John or the challenge to faith and the culpability of unbelief throughout Scripture?
According to Vanhoozer this “freedom to say “Yes” to the divine call” requires a divine determination to “enable” one to “correspond to the Author’s own voice-idea for humanity revealed and incarnated, in Jesus Christ.” Yet, Vanhoozer also says, “It is in response to the dialogical situations that comprise my life, especially my dialogical relation to God, that I exercise the freedom to realize my own voice-idea.” This is a grand example of Reformed Calvinist double-speak. God determines my correspondence to “the Author’s own voice-idea for humanity” yet “in response to the dialogical situations that comprise my life…I exercise the freedom to realize my own voice-idea.” If this is not double-speak, it is theistic determinism pure and simple.
Furthermore, if God has a “voice-idea for humanity revealed and incarnated in Jesus Christ,” how is it that he restricts that “voice-idea” to only a portion of that universal humanity for which it was intended? Vanhoozer’s talk of “freedom to…” within a predetermined eternal destiny is incoherent. The prospect that God allows for the “freedom to realize my own voice-idea” yet has predestined some to heaven and some to hell according to his “own voice-idea” is incoherent. That God may have predestined me, you or anyone else to an eternity in hell must be terribly “bad news” for all those who cannot muster up enough presumption to include themselves among the elect. Since none of us can know whether we are elect or not this is a despairing and insufficient theology for practical living.
What does Vanhoozer mean by God’s “commitment” to “the integrity of the world he has made and the characters he has placed there?” Obviously, in light of an “effectual call,” “integrity” probably refers to some final predetermined wholeness God has in mind rather than being treated with integrity, that is, with consistency and in accord with our nature as human beings. But how is God committed to “the integrity” of the non-elect “characters he has placed there?” What is “a covenant commitment to every creature, to fulfill the role of that creature?” What is “the role of that creature?” Vanhoozer talks about a “covenant commitment to every creature.” We take “that creature” to mean “human beings.” God therefore has a covenant commitment to all persons. But on Calvinism not all human beings are treated equally by God. Some are predestined to heaven and others to hell. Is this the “covenant commitment” God has with every creature?
Again, in light of the “effectual call” there are only two roles that people will ultimately play, the role that leads to eternal salvation and the role that leads to eternal damnation. Since we are all “human creatures, how then is God covenantally committed to fulfilling the role of every creature when he determines the salvation of some and the damnation of others? What “covenant” is he referring to here?
What is a “potentially infinite dialogue?” Does this mean or imply “eternal life?” Does each person have the potential to be in infinite dialogue with God? Does this “potential” depend upon a person’s faith response to God’s Word? Or do they have the “potential” for “infinite dialogue” only because God may have predestined them to salvation? How is “potential” coherent with the “effectual call” by which God has predestined that some will have an “infinite dialogue with the Author God” and others will not? Does “potential” mean you might have a chance at eternal life if you are among the elect? On Calvinism, a multitude of the “characters he has placed” in the world have no “potential” whatsoever for “infinite dialogue with the Author God who alone calls [them] into being and who consummates [their] life and gives it meaning.” And what is meant here by “meaning” as it refers to the non-elect “characters?”
An examination of this section of Vanhoozer’s text (like many others) is difficult precisely because of its incoherence. For each thought there seems to be an equal and opposite thought being presented. When you think you’ve grasped a certain point another is presented that leaves you confused as to their coherence. The propositions are elusive. It seems to me that via his terminology from modern linguistic and speech-act theory that Vanhoozer seeks to justify his Calvinism from the side of its determinism while also not wanting to deny human freedom and responsibility. But I think this is an example of Reformed Calvinist double-speak. First, he employs terms that make it appear as if there is something of real freedom in the “dialogue” between us and God. Given his Calvinism this strikes me as disingenuous. Secondly, Vanhoozer seems to revel in the glories of the positive side of his theistic determinism, that is, that there are people who are hopeless and helpless that God choses to save. Praise God for that! And Vanhoozer even presupposes his own individual election to salvation. Praise God for that too! But what he doesn’t mention is that this same God, for reasons unknown, has also predestined a multitude of persons to eternal condemnation and separation from himself. Vanhoozer completely dismissed this negative implication of his predestinarian theology. Thirdly, Vanhoozer fails to recognize the inconsistency of his theology with the biblical teachings on God’s universal love and mercy along with the universal potential of a faith response to the gospel. He presupposes the biblical accuracy of his Calvinist theology and proceeds to attempt its justification on the basis of linguistic and speech-act theory and literary analogies. To my recollection, these two texts Vanhoozer has authored are short on interaction with the relevant biblical texts. Vanhoozer simply does not bring his doctrines to the touchstone of Scripture. For instance, he evades the existential realities of human freedom and decision in favor of explaining the response of men to the gospel from within the Calvinist theological context of theistic determinism. The essentials of Calvinism lie underneath the surface in these texts with the “effectual call” playing the major role. I must say that paragraphs like this one studied here, along with a few others in these works of Vanhoozer, are truly some of the most theologically cunning pieces of “theology” I have ever encountered. Again, this is a major reason I felt compelled to write these critiques. I hope to provide some discernment into the problematic nature of the Calvinism inherent in these works.
Thus, Calvinism, it seems to me, is presumptuous, inconsistent, self-centered, and evasive of the truth about the dark side of its theology. Vanhoozer speaks as if everyone may be embraced by the “Author’s own voice-idea for humanity” and experience this consummation of life which gives it “meaning.” Moreover, assuming the Author is good by nature, he presumes that we will ultimately fulfill the good role for which we were created. But what about those God has assigned to reprobation?
According to Vanhoozer, we are all characters he has written into his script. The script is complex and involved, but it is a script written by one Author. As characters in this script, we do as the Author has written. The book is sealed. It cannot be altered. Is there any “good news?”
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] I disagree with the premise here of “total inability.” Responding to the “good news” of your salvation does not require one to change their nature. The gospel comes to us in our nature as sinners. That is the whole point of the gospel as “good news” for sinners. The Spirit also accompanies the message so as to minister God’s presence to the sinner in the hearing of the gospel. As such, the sinner, under the conviction and comfort of the Spirit and the Word may believe. This is what the Bible teaches. But the sinner may also reject this grace of God to them. The non-Calvinist insists that the Spirit is at work in everyone hearing the gospel message. The Spirit is always present in the proclamation of the gospel message to the degree that it is spoken in truth as necessary to convict the sinner on the basis of what is heard and enable him to respond in faith. Due to the Spirit’s presence confirming the content of the message unbelievers are without excuse to accept the gospel as applicable to themselves and to put their trust in Christ for salvation. Given the distinct role of the Spirit in accord with the content of the message and the nature of faith as non-meritorious, it is the sinner himself that must ultimately believe. And likewise, especially given this context of grace of Word and Spirit, it is the sinner himself that is responsible for remaining in unbelief. It is they themselves that decide to reject their salvation. The reason they reject it is rooted in their own stubborn will. They are said to be resisting or rejecting the work of the Spirit of God (Acts 7:51, Lu. 7:30; Jn. 6:63; 16:8-9; Heb. 10:29, also 6:4). Hence, their condemnation will be just. The point to note is the Bible does not speak of anyone’s individual salvation or faith response being predetermined. To propose that there is a limited number of elect people that are predestined to salvation and therefore effectually called to faith is unbiblical.
The Truth of the Gospel 