Vanhoozer writes,
“…the present work has set forth an account of divine dialogical consummation according to which God “determines” human creatures precisely in and through dialogue: the “inner persuasive discourse” of word and Spirit. Human creatures are free because other created entities do not determine their actions. God, however, is not like other creaturely causes precisely because he works on a different ontological level altogether: his operation is Authorial…A communicative theism insists…on the efficacy of God’s authorial action.” (RT, 493)
Here is a very clear statement of Vanhoozer’s Calvinist universal divine causal determinism, albeit in the language of speech-act and literary theory. We also have here Vanhoozer’s definition of human freedom. He states, “Human creatures are free because other created entities do not determine their actions,” but if God, an uncreated entity, determines their actions, then according to Vanhoozer their actions are still free because God “works on a different ontological level altogether.” But I do not see how this working at this mysterious “ontological level” makes God’s activity any less monological, causal or deterministic. Putting the word determines in quotes in the phrase “God “determines” human creatures,” does nothing to relieve the problem of determinism. Whether it is the work of created entities or an uncreated entity (i.e., God) – makes no difference. “Determines” means determines. Vanhoozer’s “inner discourse” is not real discourse because by “inner discourse” he means the activity of God that will determine what that person will do. This “inner discourse” is what God has predetermined or ordained for the individual.
Regarding “persuasive discourse,” this is always ultimately “inner” in its character, and when it comes from another human creature, the person being persuaded remains the sole author of their decision and retains the ability of contrary choice. They may reject what they are being persuaded to think or do. Not so on Calvinism. When such discourse comes from God whose “operation is Authorial” (i.e., determinative) as “divine dialogical consummation” and as “the efficacy of God’s authorial action” the person is neither the sole author of their decision, nor can God’s activity be resisted, and another course be taken. And that is the point. What Vanhoozer is really describing are the workings of his Calvinist universal divine causal determinism. The language is equivocal and contradictory (e.g., “dialogue,” “persuasive discourse,” “human creatures are free”), but it is theistic determinism nonetheless. Human entities too can touch the “inner” being of others through “persuasive discourse.” We all know this from describing something we may have heard as “it sent chills up and down my spine” along with the subsequent actions the oration or other means of “persuasion” may have produced. Certainly, God can also engage in “inner persuasive discourse,” and he can do so through communicative or even non-communicative action. But what Vanhoozer means by “inner persuasive discourse” is simply the Calvinist deterministic definition of the sovereignty of God, “irresistible grace,” and the “effectual call” expressed in different verbal garb.
We have already concluded that the use of the word “persuasive” is incoherent on Vanhoozer’s Calvinism. In addition, his description of God working on a “different ontological level,” God’s operation as “Authorial,” and “the efficacy of God’s authorial action” are just affirmations of his universal divine causal determinism in non-theological language. If put in theological language we have the standard Calvinist doctrines – God’s eternal decree, sovereignty, predestination, the effectual call, irresistible grace. Vanhoozer goes on to say,
“To speak of ‘dialogical determinism,’ then, is to maintain three tenets: (1) the dialogue between God and human creatures is real – interpersonally genuine; (2) the effect is communicative; (3) the outcome is determined.” (RT, 384)
Again, determinism by another means is still determinism and runs into the same logical, moral, epistemic, and exegetical problems I have pointed out so many times on this site. Vanhoozer’s “dialogical determinism” is unbiblical. Vanhoozer’s claim that divinely determined outcomes are “interpersonally genuine” is just a bald assertion. Can it be credibly proposed that a “communicative” “dialogue” between persons (“interpersonally”) is “genuine” if it has an “effect” that is irresistible and always, and in every way, “determined” by God? To deal with the incoherence in this progression of thought requires a full examination of what is entailed in being a human “person” whether God deals with us as a “personal” God, and if so, whether theistic determinism has a place in this personal interaction. Are the claims of “effect” and the conclusion that “the outcome is determined” coherent with the concepts and meanings of “communicative,” “dialogue,” and “interpersonally genuine?” I realize that Vanhoozer wants to maintain God’s sovereignty given the reality of human freedom. But it is a fool’s errand, logically, morally and biblically, to attempt to maintain a divine sovereignty defined as a universal divine causal determinism. Vanhoozer hopes to create a way in which his determinism fits with the human freedom and responsibility found throughout Scripture. He hopes this use of speech-act theory and its language will do so. But it does not. We can see right through the theory and the language to his universal divine causal determinism which is the heart and soul of Calvinism.
The Truth of the Gospel 