Even given what still appear to be causal and impersonal doctrines, not only towards “the beloved” but certainly towards the rejected, unloved, non-elect persons, Vanhoozer can still write the following,
“The God depicted in Scripture is hardly indifferent, either as speaker or as hearer. On the contrary, God is portrayed as engaging in dialogue with human persons – an interactive 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.
A picture of God as causal agent holds classical theism captive. When God’s willing the good is viewed in terms of causality, it is difficult to reconcile divine love with the notion of personal relation…One way beyond the classical theism-panentheism impasse is, I suggest, to see God as a communicative agent. God’s lordly loving of human persons takes the form, I believe, of communicative action.” (FT, 90)
What does God “communicate” to the those he has predetermined will spend eternity in hell away from his good and loving presence? How does “God’s lordly loving of human persons” apply to those persons this same God has predestined to an eternity in hell? Even given this frightening corollary of his Calvinist soteriological doctrines, Vanhoozer can still write,
“God’s communicative action is eminently personal.” (FT, 90)
“…the very purpose of communicative action is to relate to others.” (FT, 90-91)
“The good God wills for human beings is communion: fellowship with one another and fellowship with God.” (FT, 91)
Does Vanhoozer mean to say that God wills “fellowship with God” for all human beings? Again, given his Calvinism that cannot be true with respect to those non-elect human beings. So, without further explanation, I’m forced to conclude that Vanhoozer’s statement is not coherent with his Calvinist theology. It is disingenuous. So why doesn’t he modify his statement accordingly? He should have and could have written,
“The good God wills for his elect human beings is communion: fellowship with one another and fellowship with God.”
This is a serious criticism that Vanhoozer does not address. Furthermore, Vanhoozer states,
“What both classical and open theists need to acknowledge is the means by which God is bringing about his loving purpose. God’s love is best viewed neither in terms of causality nor in terms of mutuality but rather in terms of communication and self-communication. From the vantage point of my communicative theism, God is transcendent not as an impersonal cause…but rather as a properly communicative agent whose actions are efficacious in a way that is entirely appropriate to persons. To be sure, some post-moderns view language as a means for manipulating people, but this use of language goes against its divine “design plan,” which is to be the means for communicative rather than instrumental action. What God brings about in communicative action is understanding, as well as its precondition, faith” (FT, 91)
We will have to assess whether what God does as “communicative” relieves what according to Vanhoozer God ultimately accomplishes with persons, that is, “unilaterally” and “inevitably” “eliciting” a “response.” We will have to ask whether a “unilateral,” inevitable” “elicitation” of a “genuine response” can honestly be called both genuine and a response. And regarding the gospel he writes,
“Indeed it is possible to see not only the preaching of the gospel but the content of the gospel itself – the Word made flesh for us – as a divine communicative act: the bespeaking of a Word, Jesus Christ, that is received in the core of our being thanks to the “breath” (the energy, the power) or Holy Spirit which accompanies it. The purpose of this gospel act is nothing less than communion: union with God in Christ. Both faith and understanding come from the hearing of God’s Word (Rom 10: 17).” (FT, 91)
Question. Can people reject this “breath” (the energy, the power) or Holy Spirit” which accompanies the message of “the Word made flesh for us?” The biblical answer is of course that they can. (See Jn. 8:24; 12:37; Acts 4:11, 7:51. 18:5-6, 28:23-28, etc.) Question. Who is the “us” in the phrase “the Word made flesh for us?”
The Truth of the Gospel 