D. K. Clark writes the entry for “Truth” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (EDOT).
“The word truth denotes something that conforms to actuality, is faithful to a standard, or involves sincerity or integrity. The ground of truth is reality itself…If a statement says something is true, and it actually is, then the statement is true…In what philosophers call the correspondence theory of truth, true propositions are those that actually coincide with reality…Scripture condemns false prophets and teachers because what they say does not conform to reality. A traditional concept of biblical authority includes the idea that what Scripture teaches corresponds to the real state of affairs. It is important both to believe the truth (2 Thess. 2:9) and speak the truth (Eph. 4:15)”[1]
Given the doctrines of unconditional election and an “effectual call” there is a lack of correspondence between message and reality. The content of the gospel as “good news,” if spoken to the non-elect does not correspond to the reality God has predetermined for them. There is no truth-utterance correspondence in the case of the non-elect hearer. God says the same thing to all people – a message of good news – but creates a different effect only in the elect. As such God is not truthful to the non-elect. Once again, depending upon the precise words of Vanhoozer’s message of “good news,” which he has not given to us, the non-elect hear an impossibility for themselves presented as a possibility. The gospel content for them does not correspond to the reality that God has predetermined for them. God’s communication to them is a falsehood. The problem here is that if “the form and content of the divine discourse” is universal and unlimited, yet the “energy and persuasive efficacy” is exclusive and limited, there is then no truth correspondence between the content of the message and the reality for those not determined to receive this “energy and persuasive efficacy.” (RT, 366) God offers salvation to all, but only “effects” it in some. In other words, for many who hear the content of the divine discourse, God is saying one thing but doing another. This also leaves the speaker in a disingenuous position. The speaker does not know upon whom the Spirit intends to work so he broadcasts the “good news” far and wide, yet when he does so he speaks a falsehood given the Calvinist propositions of unconditional election and an “effectual call” which teach that the “good news” has no application to the non-elect hearer. So. this “general call” has no correspondence in reality for those who do not receive the “effectual call.” It is therefore to speak a falsehood to the non-elect. On the other hand, if the Calvinist were to tailor his message according to his ignorance of who are the elect and non-elect, which integrity would demand, he is left with no “good news” for any hearer. He is only left with his Calvinist soteriological information to share with people. There would be nothing of the “call” to repent and believe in Christ and be saved. There would be nothing of an “appeal to others to head the word of the Lord.” (RT, 503) There could be nothing of the assurance that God loves you and Jesus died for you to take away your sins. All he could do is inform people of the fact that God has an elect that he will certainly save by an “effectual call” and proceed to speculate about what the evidences of such a call might entail. What do you think? Is that the “good” news? Good news for whom?
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] D. K. Clark, “Truth”, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 1219-1220.
The Truth of the Gospel 