Vanhoozer incorporates Mikhail Bakhtin’s literary concepts of polyphony, authoring and “hero” into his theology. Since the “Author” is outside of our spatial existence, he has an omniscience that the “hero” does not have. Vanhoozer states,
“Bakhtin himself occasionally gestures in this direction: ‘What I must be for the other, God is for me.’ As the author is an “I” to the hero’s “other,” bestowing wholeness and meaning, so God is the Authorial “I” to the world as “other.” Moving with but ultimately beyond the Bakhtinian grain, we can say that God’s authorial outsidedness enables him to see not only what is “behind our back” but also what is “beyond our death.” Of course, what God authors is not fiction but the whole of history. What else is the drama of redemption if not the story of how the Creator consummates his creation into a whole that is true, good, and beautiful as it is meaningful: a renewed and restored world, an abundant garden-city characterized by everlasting shalom?” (RT, 326-327)
Vanhoozer goes on to make the theological application that,
“…God is now the heavenly father who is over me and can be merciful to me…” (RT, 326).
The point to note here is that Vanhoozer and Bakhtin make a grand assumption about their own standing before God that is not necessarily true according to the tenets of Calvinist soteriology. That grand assumption is that God is good to them in a way that he is not to others in the world. Vanhoozer writing about the eschatological consummation makes the grand assumption that “God is for me” – that he is one of the elect. How does he know this, and why shouldn’t everyone else be assured that “God is for me?” And if they should believe this, then the doctrines of unconditional election and an effectual call cannot be correct. So “God is for me” is the grand presumption of Calvinists given these doctrines. The problem here is that none of us can know what the ‘Author’ has written into the script for us. So God knows what is “behind our back” and also what is “beyond our death,” but we cannot. Our knowledge of God’s disposition and plans for us, which is the basis for relationship or communion with him, is extinguished. While the knowledge of God’s eternal, fixed decree that has preordained “whatsoever comes to pass,” which includes each person’s eternal destiny, is inaccessible to us, we could never come to be assured of what is “beyond our death.”
Question: Given Vanhoozer’s Calvinist theology, may it be that God is unmerciful to me? The answer is definitely “Yes.” Before their very existence, a multitude of “human heroes” have been designated as non-elect and therefore their “Author” predetermined their eternal damnation. Although “God is now the heavenly father who is over” them, He determined to be unmerciful to them. This is the reason why they do not respond to the “gospel.” They cannot. They never will be “effectually called.” Vanhoozer does not address this dark side of his Calvinist theology. He does not speak about the full scope, reality, and implications of Calvinist soteriology. He simply excuses this problem of his unmerciful God in a footnote on page 384 when he says,
“As to why some people do not respond to God, it is a deep mystery; as to why some do, it is a deep grace.”
Vanhoozer is disingenuous here. He knows very well why some people do not respond to God. This is no “deep mystery,” for according to his theology some people do not respond to God because God has determined it to be that way. They do not respond to him because they are not among the elect and therefore, they are not effectually called. Vanhoozer would have us believe it a “deep mystery” as to why God does not elect some to salvation, thereby not granting them an “effectual call,” and yet he can say that it is a “deep grace” that God has decided to elect some to salvation thereby granting them an “effectual call.” This kind of statement presupposes Calvinist theistic determinism. There is another, more biblical, explanation for a person’s positive or negative response to the gospel. One’s response lies not in the call but in the person. (i.e., Parable of the Sower, Matt. 13:1-23) That’s why we speak of it as a response. The overwhelming testimony of Scripture to human choice and moral responsibility bears this out. For the Calvinist, God must determine each person’s eternal destiny, therefore he accomplishes this via an “effectual call” that transcends the “general call.” A man’s “response” is determined by God.
Vanhoozer and Bakhtin also speak about the “hero” – us – responding to the call of others (ethics) and the word of God (religion). But authored characters simply do what the author has determined. This “authoring” analogy is not the biblical depiction of the situation between God and man. Man is not “authored” by God. Man is created by God in God’s image. He therefore can genuinely respond to others and God. As Vanhoozer put it, “Can authorial heroes be agents with their own identities? It is hard to see how on a monological conception of authorship.” (RT, 329) I agree. But Calvinist soteriology in its historical and present popular form is inescapably “monological,” that is, inevitably deterministic. Therefore, authorial heroes are not agents with their own identities. Granted, God’s “authorship” may consist in the “bestowal of meaningful form,” (RT, 326) but according to Calvinist unconditional election this Author has also bestowed a terrifying “form” upon all those not predestined to eternal life. Simply to pronounce God’s work of predestination “dialogical” does not mitigate the essential problem of determinism.
So Vanhoozer simply presupposes that God is merciful to him and is for him. And since “God is for me” and “can be merciful to me” Vanhoozer draws the ethical imperative that we ought to be and do to others what God is and does for us. But Vanhoozer is acting presumptuously regarding himself, and his Calvinism cannot carry this ethical weight. In order for me to treat my fellow man ethically I must know that God also treats him ethically. What lasting incentive and motivation is there to love another if it remains a possibility that God himself hates him? Is our love more imperative than his? The ethical imperative is thrown into theological and existential confusion because it is certainly the case that the Calvinist God who elects some to eternal salvation and does not elect others, leaving them in their sin, judging and holding them culpable for it, and assigning them to eternal damnation, hates them. How can I love and forgive when God simply does not?
Furthermore, I find it interesting that despite his deterministic position regarding each person’s salvation Vanhoozer can say,
“A word of forgiveness can be ignored, or it can be accepted.” (FT, 157)
This is hardly coherent with a doctrine that states that God determines the effect of his word of forgiveness from himself to others. If a word of forgiveness can be ignored or accepted, then contrary to his theological determinism, Vanhoozer is acknowledging that there is real contingency in the world. He is acknowledging an exercise of the will of the creature that is rooted in one’s self. But how then is there a real salvific contingency in the world if God has predetermined whom he will save by an effectual call? Can a “word of forgiveness” be ignored or accepted by the person themselves if God predetermined that it would either be ignored or accepted for that person? If Vanhoozer does not mean to convey that person’s themselves either ignore or accept God’s forgiveness (which seem to be the plain meaning of his words), for the sake of honest communication he ought to make that clear. The word of forgiveness goes out, but it means nothing to the non-elect who are not “effected” by the Spirit to “accept” it. If the person hearing the word cannot either accept or reject it, that is, has the ability of contrary choice, it seems that the word of forgiveness is only a word of God to himself through a person he has designated to be so move by his Spirit to accept it. Is Vanhoozer simply informing us of the two resulting evidences of Calvinist unconditional election? Does he mean to say that “a word of forgiveness can be ignored, or it can be accepted, depending upon whether one is elect or not?” Or should we take the words in their plain sense – that “people can either ignore God’s word of forgiveness or accept it. It is ultimately up to them.” The charge of “instrumentality” against the Calvinist God seems to be a valid and necessary conclusion. Theistic determinism is overwhelmingly destructive of the claims that God is personal, relational, “dialogical,” “communicative,” desires “communion,” and that man is a free, responsible, “self-authoring,” moral agent.
Note also that the ethical imperative to love and show mercy to others is based upon who and what God actually and really is to us, that is, God is “for me.” It is because God is merciful to me that I ought to be merciful to all others.[1] And if I ought to be merciful to all – even my enemies – surely God’s mercy knows no bounds?[2] But is he really merciful to me, Vanhoozer or my neighbor given Calvinist soteriology? Don’t these doctrines inject real doubt as to God’s true disposition towards any of us? The point is that Vanhoozer simply presupposes that God’s kind and saving disposition, God’s election, applies to himself. And if he presupposes that for himself why shouldn’t all others do the same? In practical effect therefore we have a univocal message of “good news” for all individuals assuring them that God’s will for them is their salvation. Hence the reality is that God has not predestined any to eternal damnation and the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election and an “effectual call” become irrelevant and false.
Furthermore, what is the content of the “good news” Vanhoozer first heard? Did it assure him of God’s love for him? How is such a message coherent with his present Calvinist soteriological position? If such a message assured him of God saving disposition then that same message as spoken to all provides that same assurance. Again, the Calvinist soteriological scheme fails to apply. The Calvinist lack of forthrightness, clarity and precision regarding the content of the “gospel” message, the fact that they must presume that they are included in God’s unconditional predestination of certain individuals to salvation, and the certainty that the message they first heard when they did hear “the gospel” could not have been their present Calvinist soteriology, all point to a biblical confusion within that theological scheme. The nature and implications of the incoherencies generated by the Calvinist doctrines cause us to seriously doubt their biblical validity. For most Calvinists this inconsistency and incoherence is not at all troubling. Hence, to bridge the Calvinist/non-Calvinist divide in the evangelical church, or at least establish one’s own personal theological convictions, it is essential to determine whether there is a place for such inconsistency and incoherence in a sound, biblical hermeneutic.
My observation in reading Vanhoozer’s theology is that he is struggling to introduce an aspect of the personal and the universal into a theology that is inherently impersonal and exclusive. He is struggling to get outside his theological constraints that do not provide an accurate reflection of the fuller testimony of the Scriptures to God ways and human freedom. But with each attempt he runs smack into the incoherence of his theistic determinism.
To whom does this “gospel” apply given Vanhoozer’s Calvinist deterministic doctrines? It applies to those who presume their own election after they heard a message of God’s salvation that is universal and therefore assured them that they were included and could be saved. Ironically, it must be that the Calvinist, when they first heard the gospel, heard a message inconsistent with the exclusive, limiting theology they now embrace. They must have heard of God’s love and Jesus’ death on their behalf. It is only upon hearing the “good news” of their salvation and being assured that God was kindly disposed towards them in Christ and that Christ revealed God’s salvific will and love for them that they could take God at his word and put their faith and trust in Christ. Therefore, it could only be after hearing this sort of message that they embraced the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement and an “effectual call,” otherwise they would have been left with no assurance that they were included in God’s salvation “in Christ.” Calvinists are people who subsequently embraced theological propositions inconsistent with that first “good news” they themselves heard and responded to. Before their conversion to Calvinism they heard only the “general call” offering them the assurance of God’s love for them and grace to them “in Christ” and the offer of salvation to be received by faith. It is only afterwards that they embraced the “effectual call” that was required given their new theistic determinism. For the Reformed Calvinist, therefore, whether or not their newly found doctrines are consistent with the content of the gospel they first heard, seems to be irrelevant. Regarding an “effectual call,” it is required of the theology Vanhoozer came to embrace. He can only now presume his own election and experience of an “effectual call.” The only other alternatives are to be left with the dreadful prospect that he may not be among the elect, or, the biblical hope that God desires him to be saved and therefore Christ actually died for his sins and he can appropriate that objective salvation through faith in Christ. But Vanhoozer does not believe the latter is the case. Therefore he must dispel the anxiety produced by the dreadful prospect that he may not be among the elect by presuming his own election, which ironically is to acquiesce to a form of non-Calvinist soteriology. They have taken theological license to provide themselves the assurance of God’s kind disposition “in Christ.” But this is not consistent Calvinist soteriology. And we sense this throughout Vanhoozer’s writing. Given his own soteriological presuppositions, Vanhoozer speaks a presumption; as if he is assured that God’s salvific designs apply to him despite the fact that his basic soteriology places this in doubt. This is why he speaks only from the point of view of one whom God shows elective and “effective” favor and completely disregards the problematic corollary of his Calvinist theistic determinism. Given the doctrine of an “effectual call,” how does one become saved? Will I be one of those “human heroes” whom “the Author freely and lovingly consummates?” (RT, 356-7) This is the essential question of human existence to which Vanhoozer can provide no sure answer. He provides no specific content to the gospel message as “good news.” The doctrine of an “effectual call” presupposes an unconditional election and an eternal deterministic salvific decree. What these doctrines conspire together to do is erode the biblical testimony that Christ himself reveals God’s salvific will for the hearer of the gospel. Biblically speaking salvation is accomplished for each individual and is appropriated simply by faith. The gospel is a message about God’s will, and what is to be known of that will is found in the person at the center of that will and gospel message – Jesus Christ. Therefore, any who hear this gospel hear the “good news” of a salvation that can certainly be theirs by putting their faith and trust in Christ. We need look no further for the knowledge of God’s saving purpose and will for us personally than the revelation of God’s saving work in Christ Jesus. To whom does this gospel apply? There is no doubt that it is for every individual sinner, not just to physically hear it, as in a “general call” that may not be accompanied by an “effectual call,” but to hear the univocal gospel call as the expression of God’s desire that they should believe in Christ and thus realize this salvation in their own lives, thus allowing God to “consummate” their existence. Ironically, this must be the message the Calvinist first heard.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] See the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt. 18:21-35.
[2] See Ex. 33:18, 19 where God’s “glory” is spoken of in terms of his “goodness.” Where God states that it is his prerogative to show grace and mercy to whoever he wills, the idea is that there will be no claims of favoritism, exclusivity, or constraints placed upon God as to the limits of his grace and mercy. His grace and mercy will know no bounds. It has been extended to Israel in their being “chosen” by God and it can and will extend beyond his “chosen people” so that he will have mercy on all. Indeed, in Ex. 34:6, 7 “merciful and gracious” is the very character of his “name.” On that basis Moses could make his plea for God’s presence, pardon and adoption of the people as his “inheritance.” In Matt. 5:43-48 we are to love and pray for our enemies on the basis that the Father’s grace knows no bounds. We are to be like him in the integrity of his character (see Lk. 6:27-36, especially v. 36). In stark contrast, Jonah was exceedingly angry when God relented of the disaster he was to bring upon Nineveh because he knew that God was “a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster.” (Jonah 4:2) Note Rom. 11:32 where Paul, from the culmination of all God’s historical salvific “speech-acts” draws the conclusion that “God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” See also the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matt. 20:1-16 where Jesus highlights God’s nature to be generous above and beyond human expectations. Note that the character of God’s grace is presented as inclusive. The point is that with respect to God’s grace what we thought to be the nature of grace is exceeded, not reversed by arbitrary limitation and exclusion. The Ex. 34:6 passage also tells us that God “will by no means clear the guilty,” which is to say that he cannot do injustice in simply overlooking sin. Yet there is no conflict between being a God that is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” and one who “will by no means clear the guilty” because “in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:25, 26) The point is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” (Rom. 3:23-25, see also 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10; Heb. 2:17) Those who reject this gift of justification and redemption and the propitiation provided for them “in Christ” through their continued unbelief remain in the guilt of their sin and will not be cleared. The point of the atonement is that the way for the clearing of one’s guilt has been provided for by a God of mercy and grace whose nature is one to forgive “iniquity and transgression and sin.” This forgiveness is made possible by the New Covenant established in Christ Jesus and is appropriated simply by faith.
The Truth of the Gospel 