Vanhoozer writes,
“Christ is not simply the object of our believing. Rather, the Spirit of Christ lays hold of us as we, in the Spirit, lay hold of Christ. Faith is thus “something we do while it happens to us.” We are the subjects of our acts (i.e., believing, having faith) even as we are caught up in an encompassing action of the Spirit. Believing – holding our confidence firm to the end – is something we do as the Spirit renders us believers.” (RT, 290)
Vanhoozer is attempting to reconcile human responsibility and theistic determinism. He therefore speaks of a simultaneity in which we are the subject of our acts while what God has predetermined for us happens to us. Faith is “something we do while it happens to us.” We know Vanhoozer holds to an “effectual call” that presupposes an unconditional election, so we sense that he is trying to burn the theological candle of theistic determinism and human freedom at both ends here. This smacks of Calvinist theological double-speak which is the result of attempting to wedge something that can pass for genuine human freedom into a theistic determinism. What does he mean by “something we do?” Merely instrumentally as the one being acted upon? Of course, if it is “we” who are being acted upon, it would be “we” who are “doing it,” that is, “acting out” what God is doing in us. So, the key point is whether Vanhoozer is able to truthfully say that we are the subjects of our own acts, or is he simply speaking ambiguously about us being “the subjects of our acts” in an instrumental sense, that is. God causes us to will to believe?
According to Vanhoozer’s theology we cannot escape the conclusion that what he must mean here is that we are only “the instrumental “subjects” of “our acts (i.e., believing, having faith)” because it is God who elects unconditionally, calls effectually, and gives faith as “we are caught up in an encompassing action of the Spirit” who “renders us believers.” “Renders” equals “makes” or “causes.” Unconditional election, an effectual call, and the granting of faith serve to secure salvation without any human activity whatsoever other than simply what may be observed as one is being acted upon by God. As far as the person who is being acted upon is concerned, they are merely instrumental in doing his will. With respect to our salvation, we are “altogether passive therein.” The Westminster confession is clear about this in the chapter titled “Of Effectual Calling.” Chapter 10, section 2 reads,
“2. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.” [1]
Calvinism teaches us that salvation is “all of God” as he acts upon those he has predetermined to save.
As much as Vanhoozer would like to have us doing something (i.e., “as we…lay hold of Christ,” “Faith is thus “something we do…,” “We are the subjects of our acts…,” “Believing…is something we do…”), he so qualifies our “doing” with God’s predetermination of what we will do that he nullifies free will in any true and genuine sense. We become merely instrumental “doers.”
But it is not biblical to speak of the Spirit “rendering us believers.” The Bible speaks of requiring faith as a free response of a person to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It is the sinner who believes, and upon believing receives from God justification and salvation, no matter how quickly God responds to that faith. The Spirit does not “render” a person a believer based upon the fact that they have been predestined to salvation by God. This is nowhere found in Scripture. Note that the corollary to Calvinist unconditional election is that all others fall outside this work of the Spirit’s “rendering” such that they cannot be saved. They are predestined to eternal damnation with no hope of salvation.
In contrast to this unbiblical theology, Jesus Christ is presented as the object of our faith. On the cross he is “lifted up,” and in that his saving work is made public, it is shown to have universal applicability and therefore the gospel may, and should, be proclaimed to all as genuinely and truthfully offering the love and salvation of God to them. There is no doubt of God’s salvific intentions for anyone. That is what makes the gospel message “good new.” As such, Jesus is not merely the means by which God implements his eternal decision to save a limited number of elect persons, even if he has the Spirit “render” them believers via what might be deemed a “communicative” manner. Vanhoozer cannot save his theology from its obvious conflict with what the Bible tells us about the nature of God, his universal love for every individual, and his mercy, grace, and salvation offered to all so anyone may have eternal life.
Moreover, compare the above statements with the following statements.
“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…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. (RT, 336)
“All human beings…have authorial potential. I “author” myself, not in the sense of ex nihilo creation but rather by being the agent of my own actions” (RT, 318)
“Justification and sanctification have to do with the way in which God “communicates” his righteousness and holiness to the ungodly. God declares those who place their faith in Christ forgiven and directs and enables them to live accordingly by having the Spirit minister the gospel to them.” (RT, 279, footnote 122)
We need clarity for a coherent explanation here. We know that Vanhoozer’s concept of “authoring” when referring to God means his sovereignty as Calvinists define it, that is, as universal divine causal determinism. He has willed and brings to pass everything that occurs. All the attitudes, desires, beliefs, and actions of everyone are the result of his will alone. Hence Vanhoozer’s statements about human “agents” having “authorial potential” and that he has “the freedom to realize my own voice idea” are in contradiction to his propositions about God as “Author.” Given Vanhoozer’s God who is the “Author” of all things, how can he also coherently claim to be the “agent of [his] own actions?” If all human beings have “authoring potential” how is that coherent with the actual and comprehensive “Authoring” of all things? Does such “authorial potential” include believing and obedience as well as unbelief and disobedience? How then does God unconditionally elect and effectually call while “all human beings have their own “authorial potential” and are “the agents of their own actions” and have the “freedom to realize [their] own voice-idea?” For all the fancy language and concepts here, Vanhoozer makes no advance beyond the problems of his Calvinist determinism.
More clarity is needed for the third quote for this also seems incoherent with Vanhoozer’s Calvinist theology. What does it mean for them [the ungodly] “to place their faith in Christ?” I thought the ungodly were dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing as to spiritual things? The Westminster Confession says that people are “altogether passive therein.” I thought God has to grant them faith and all they could do is wait for that to happen. Also, justification and sanctification being “the way” God “communicates” his righteousness and holiness is somewhat unclear. The point is that serious issues can be raised as to the coherence of Vanhoozer’s words as compared with his theology.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, ch. X, “Of Effectual Calling,” (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 88.
The Truth of the Gospel 