Vanhoozer writes,
“The good God wills for human beings is communion: fellowship with one another and fellowship with God.” (FT, 91)
While reading Vanhoozer one has to be on the lookout for Calvinist double-speak. Although the plain connotation of Vanhoozer’s statement here is that God wills that “human beings,” that means all of us, experience communion or fellowship with himself, Vanhoozer cannot be referring to all human beings when he says, “human beings.” As a Calvinist what he must mean is, “The good God wills for his elect human beings is communion…fellowship with God.” We object to Vanhoozer’s obfuscation here when he says, “The good God wills for human beings is…fellowship with God.” He is not saying all that he must honestly say if words mean something and integrity in speech is to be cherished. The impression he gives with this statement, and the way we take it as plainly spoken, is that for all human beings God wills that they have fellowship with him. To say “the good God wills for human beings” is to speak as if all human beings as individual persons are in view, not only types, races, or people groups. We take the statement as meaning “everyone” without exception. But as a Calvinist, and given his doctrine of an “effectual call,” this is what Vanhoozer cannot mean. If we are all “human beings,” and we are, how can it be rationally coherent to theologically maintain that God creates certain human beings with the specific intention of making them experience eternal punishment in hell while also telling us that “The good God wills for human beings is…fellowship with God? How is Vanhoozer’s theology of eternal damnation that God predestined for many before they even existed consistent with telling us that “The good God wills for human beings is communion,” that is, “fellowship with one another and fellowship with God?” It is not consistent unless Vanhoozer means something else by “human beings.” Vanhoozer’s statements here are at best cavalierly evasive of his underlying theology and at worst audacious and disingenuous. The point is that if he insists upon believing the Calvinist doctrines, then he ought to be less evasive and mora consistent in what he says. He could have just as easily and clearly said what according to his Calvinism would be theologically accurate and coherent, that is, “The good God wills for his elect is communion: fellowship with one another and fellowship with God.”
So, there is indication here of what I call the typical Calvinist sub-linguistic connotations of words. In the very next sentence Vanhoozer says, “The “openness” theists are entirely correct to call our attention to the centrality of the genuinely personal relation that God seeks with his people.” This seems to be a clearer reference to those chosen by God to be saved. Those he has predestined to salvation are “his people.” Hence, we must wonder what Vanhoozer really meant when he said, “The good God wills for human beings…” when now he speaks of “the genuinely personal relation God seeks with his people.” He may of course be using “his people” in accord with Scripture as the theological description of all those who believe in Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord. But by the phrase “human beings” what Vanhoozer must have meant as a Calvinist must have been “the genuinely personal relation God seeks with his elect, that is, those he predestined to salvation.” The point here is that Calvinists use words and phrases that according to their plain sense refer to God’s universal salvific intent but really have their own sub-meanings for these same words and phrases. Again, for the Calvinist the phrase “human beings” really must mean “the elect who are human beings.”
The Truth of the Gospel 