Vanhoozer continues,
“The Father’s activity is locution. God the Father is the utterer, the begetter, the sustainer of words. He is the agent who locutus est per prohetas in former time, and who now speaks through the Son (Heb. 1:1-2),” (FT, 154)
“The illocution has content (reference and predication) and a particular intent (a force) that shows how the proposition is to be taken. It is illocutionary force that makes a speech act count as, say, a promise. What illocutionary act is performed is determined by the speaker; its meaning is therefore objective.” (FT, 154, 155)
“The third aspect of a speech act is the perlocutionary. This refers to the effect an illocutionary act has on the actions or beliefs of the hearer. For example, by “arguing” (illocution) I may “persuade” (perlocution) someone.
The great benefit of this analysis is that it enables us clearly to relate the Spirit’s relation to the Word of God. First, the Spirit illumines the reader and so enables the reader to grasp the illocutionary point, to recognize what the Scriptures may be doing. Second, the Spirit convicts the reader that the illocutionary point of the biblical text deserves the appropriate response: ‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ” (Jn. 20:31).
The Spirit does not alter the semantics of biblical literature. Locution and illocution inscribed in Scripture remain unchanged. The Spirit’s agency consists rather in bringing the illocutionary point home to the reader and so achieving the corresponding perlocutionary effect – whether belief, obedience, praise or some other. The testimony of the Spirit is nothing less than the effective presence of the illocutionary force. Thanks to the Spirit’s testimony, these biblical words deliver. They convey illocutionary force and so liberate. Historical-critical scholarship alone cannot save the perlocutionary effect.”(FT, 155)
Again, we wonder what precisely is the “content” that the Father utters (locution) and how it is that what is heard means the same thing to each hearer (illocution, i.e., “…its meaning is therefore objective.”), but it’s meaning can only become a reality (perlocution) in a certain class of hearer (the elect). The words are the same, but their meaning has no “particular intent” for the non-elect for the words were never intended by the Father to have an effect in them. Speech act theory may show “how the proposition is to be taken,” but the non-elect can never take it that way. Thus, God speaks disingenuously to the non-elect. The message is a mockery to them.
Note the monological and causal or compelling nature of the Calvinist “effectual call.” The Spirit illumines. The Spirit convicts. The Spirit achieves “the corresponding perlocutionary effect – whether belief, obedience, praise or some other.”
Jeremy A. Evans exposes the inconsistency in Vanhoozer’s application of speech-act theory to God’s commands and the biblical gospel message. Taking as an example Acts 17:30 where Luke records Paul as affirming that God now “commands all people everywhere to repent,” Evans evaluates the ideas of illocution and perlocution in light of an “effectual call” which is the corollary to an “unconditional election.”
“Undoubtedly, He has commanded humans to repent, that they are to move from their state of unbelief to one of belief (Heb. 11:6). Yet this brings up an interesting question for the Calvinist: if God has willed to pass over many of the lost to enable them to belief, what sense can be made of His commanding their repentance and belief, especially knowing that He has not enabled them to believe?…Pertinent to this discussion on biblical imperatives is realizing what God commands must have a logical connection with what He intends to accomplish through His act of commanding – thus creating a difficulty for Reformed views of the will. In proper speech-act parlance, an utterance’s perlocution and illocution differ. Though the discussion is nuanced, the illocution will be treated as the speaker’s intention that is revealed in his speech, and the perlocution as the effect or intended effect of the speech on the speaker and/or listener.
With this in mind, consider God’s commands to repent and believe. If God has inspired the words of Scripture to reveal his salvation plan, then it is reasonable to believe that He intends in each of these commands to bring about an action of morally positive status for the one to whom the command is directed – He intended to command human beings to repent. People use commands to motivate other persons to act, namely to do that which they were not going to do but that they should be doing. Luke clearly says that God has commanded everyone to repent. For whom is this command morally binding? Biblically, the answer is everyone…”[1]
So Evans is saying that words certainly reveal the speakers intent. God expresses his desire that all repent through his command to repent that is universal. (Acts 17:22-34) The intent of the words “repent and believe” must correspond to the reality of the hearer’s situation and possibilities. God’s word ought not to be set in conflict with a secret intent he predetermined to effect. The illocutionary speaking should be coherent with the perlocutionary effect. But this is not so in Calvinism. Simply put, God does not allow to occur what he has expressed should occur. Evans continues,
“The illocution is the speaker’s intention in the performative utterance. When God commands repentance, He is intending to speak the truth of people’s need to turn their hearts toward Him…Consider how this applies to our previous discussion on the general call and special calls of God. The general call, as previously discussed is given to every hearer of the gospel, but the special call is an inward call directed only to the elect. In essence, the message, though with two distinct divine illocutions, is the same. If God elects some to salvation, then he does not intend for His speech to change the moral standing of the non-elect persons before Him…God intended the elect to be illumined unto salvation; for the non-elect He did not intend a transforming work in their lives, The same message, but two divine perlocutions was given.”[2]
Thus, for the non-elect hearer, God’s words do not match his intent. This is extremely morally troubling to say the least. Especially in light of the following statement of Vanhoozer,
“God identifies himself by his speech acts. Better: what God does with language reveals God’s identity, just as our actions reveal who we are. The way we encounter a person is largely through his or her speech acts, and one’s identity is largely a function of whether, or how, one keeps one’s word. God identifies himself as the One who utters words on our behalf and as the One who keeps his words. God’s Word is utterly reliable, whether that word is a command, a warning, a promise, forgiveness or, yes, even an assertion.” (FT, 156, 157)
Vanhoozer’s failure to see the implication of his doctrine of an “effectual call” upon the integrity of the words of God spoken in a “general call” is troubling and astonishing, yet typical of Calvinist reasoning. They refuse to address the logical and moral corollary of their doctrine of unconditional election. Vanhoozer says, “God’s Word is utterly reliable.” What possible meaning, truth correspondence or “reliability” does God’s word of “command,” “warning,” “promise,” or “forgiveness” have for the non-elect? Recall Vanhoozer as saying,
“The Spirit does not alter the semantics of biblical literature. Locution and illocution inscribed in Scripture remain unchanged. The Spirit’s agency consists rather in bringing the illocutionary point home to the reader and so achieving the corresponding perlocutionary effect – whether belief, obedience, praise or some other. The testimony of the Spirit is nothing less than the effective presence of the illocutionary force. Thanks to the Spirit’s testimony, these biblical words deliver. They convey illocutionary force and so liberate.” (FT, 155)
In examining Acts 17:22-34 more closely, Paul speaks to the men of Athens about the foolish inconsistency inherent in idolatry when “the God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth” is the one who “himself gives to mankind life and breath and everything.” (v. 25) And regarding their ignorance as “to the unknown god” Paul proclaims him as the God who “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (v. 26) with a certain gracious purpose in doing so. That purpose was “that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.” (v. 27) And Paul quickly adds, “Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being…” (vss. 27-28) Therefore, the times of ignorant idolatry “God overlooked” due to the fact that he would further reveal himself with clarity and power “by a man whom he has appointed.” Paul adds that “of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (v. 31) God has “fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness.” Therefore, Paul tells the Athenians that now this God “commands all people everywhere to repent.” (v.30) God’s grace in Christ Jesus extends to “all people everywhere,” which is to say each person of every nation. God gives all men and women everywhere the opportunity to be saved. Paul also affirms that a human response is necessary for salvation. God does not predetermine a man’s repentance. God commands from the sinner a response of repentance as an essential element to the “good news” of their salvation.
The point is that the passage in every sense provides us theological information that is incoherent with the Calvinist soteriological “doctrines of grace” or the idea of “sovereignty grace” as an unconditional election and effectual call. Paul does not view history, the passing of time, or God’s actions in his plan of salvation as referring exclusively to an elect that are to be “effectually called.” Rather, Paul’s view of the historical actions of God and his determinations as to “allotted periods” and “the boundaries of their dwelling places” serve the purpose of universal grace with respect to mankind coming to the knowledge of God and salvation. It is God’s purpose that “they should seek God” and “find him.” He has done what must be done for them to do so. He has overlooked idolatry up until the present full revelation of himself in the “man whom he has appointed” to “judge the world in righteousness.” In light of the coming judgment, the response God now “commands” of his “offspring” is to “repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mk. 1:15) That command, coming from the God of Truth, has truth value and therefore application to “all men everywhere.” (v 30) In fact, God has “given assurance to all” of the truth of this final revelation of God in Jesus Christ by “raising him from the dead.” (v. 31) This “good news” therefore applies to all. This was the content of Paul’s gospel message. Paul could not have expressed a more universal and individually applicable salvation for every sinner in clearer terms.
Furthermore, the Calvinists incoherence between locution, illocution and perlocutionary effect creates insurmountable problems for establishing a biblical view of moral responsibility. Evans continues,
“If divine commands are not intended to correct a course of thought and action, then the non-elect are not morally obligated to that course of action (God never intended them to change their status)…If God’s intentions in speech cannot be connected with the intended effect of the utterance, then working out a solid, account of moral obligation becomes exceptionally difficult.”[3]
Not only that, but if the intended effect of the gospel message is the saving of the individual, and God’s intentions in speech cannot be connected with the effect of the utterance, what then becomes of the gospel defined as “good news?” If God does not intend in effect what he says in speech, then the gospel as “good news” is undermined.
Vanhoozer’s problem is that there is no truth correspondence between God’s words of love, light, life and forgiveness to the non-elect and the reality predetermined for them. The problem is that what is heard by both the elect and non-elect has a different divine intention even though it is the same message as to its content. Therefore, if it is a message whose content is true to the biblical gospel, it is a message that is not in accord with the truth for the non-elect. It is a lie. Any “illocution” and “perlocution” must be in accord with the content of the locutions of the Father. This is the nature of truth statements. Truth statements correspond to the reality of the situation. But with respect to the non-elect what is spoken does not correspond to the divinely decreed, unchangeable reality of their situation. Although they hear about salvation, they never can and never will be saved. Although they hear about the love of God it does not apply to them. Although they hear about the work of Christ, it is not a work on their behalf. Although they hear the command to repent and believe, they never can do so. Therefore the “good news” is at one and the same time truth for some and a falsity for others. Evans writes,
“When Billy Graham preaches at Shea Stadium, the call of God is to all persons equally, so the issue of special and general calls has no purchase. No finessing is required between the illocution and perlocution. God intends to command the listeners to repent, effecting a complete change in the heart of the hearer towards the saving message of our Lord Jesus.”[4]
Such a position is straightforward, accounts for what has been said about human responsibility, is coherent with the content of the message of the gospel and is consistent with the biblical data on the nature of faith. The content of the gospel message biblically defined as “good news” is certainly inconsistent with the Calvinist soteriological doctrines. What is the precise content of the gospel for Vanhoozer? Again, he is conspicuously silent on this matter. For the gospel as “good news” is about how God loves the one hearing the message, not that he loves only those to whom he sends the Spirit to produce an effectual call.. It is about how Jesus died for the one hearing the message, not just for a limited number whom he predetermined to save. It is about the sure hope of salvation “in Christ” for the one hearing the message, not just “a hope” that God has predestined me for salvation. If the gospel were not about these things there would be no “good news” in the message for the sinner. If God is true and does not lie in what he communicates, then it is important to know the precise content of his message, it must be clearly and accurately proclaimed and it must be true for all who hear it, unless, that is, the Calvinist is willing to contend that only the elect hear the “good news.” If the “good news” is to be proclaimed far and wide to every person then that news is “good” for all. But this would be logically and morally incoherent with an “effectual call” and unconditional election.
Furthermore, when the Calvinist claims that he can speak to all, assuring them that God has good intentions for them on the basis that he does not know who the elect and non-elect are, this plea of ignorance of who is elect and who is not is immaterial to the issue of truth. Truth correspondence still applies. If the gospel is proclaimed indiscriminately, in order for the words of “good news” to be true they must apply to all or else they are simply false, that is, a lie to the non-elect. One’s ignorance of who are the elect and non-elect is not the issue and misses the point. Speaking the truth cannot rest upon our ignorance of the correspondence between our words and reality. Whether our words truthfully apply to particular persons or not is not excused by our ignorance. God knows the truth and his character demands this correspondence. The truth has an independent existence of its own and is known by God. What we proceed to claim as true must correspond to the reality of the situation. If the Calvinist proclaims to all words of “good news,” their words of gospel proclamation would not correspond to their theological words that maintain the existence of a non-elect for which the words of good news do not apply, unless, again, they are willing to argue that the non-elect never hear that “good news.” The issue is surely that we do not have the prerogative to speak as though certain things are true when the fact of the matter is that we are ignorant of whether they are true or not. Such an approach is at best misleading and disingenuous. At its worst it is deceptive and a lie.
What are the implications of all this for the Calvinist? It requires that the Calvinist speak coherent with his theology. He ought to speak in accord with what he believes theologically. Therefore, if theologically he believes that some are not predestined to benefit from the “good news” then he ought not to justify speaking an unqualified message of “good news” of God’s promise of salvation to all simply because of his own ignorance of who the elect and non-elect might be. He has an obligation to be true to his own theology and to honestly speak on behalf of the God who is Truth himself. If the Calvinist believes there is an elect and non-elect his “gospel” speech ought to reflect that belief. To speak as if the non-elect do not exist as a component in what is proclaimed as “good news” or that the gospel is universally applicable and yet maintain theologically that it really only has application to or is “effectual” for the elect and not for the non-elect is to speak incoherently and untruthfully about the situation to the non-elect. If we are to take the concept and practice of truth seriously, to speak as though the gospel is universally applicable is a tacit admission that one believes it is. If one does not and does not make that clear, they are being false to the hearers. To speak as though the gospel is universally applicable is a tacit admission that it is really true that salvation is not limited and exclusive but universal and inclusive. And if that is true, the opposite cannot also be true. Salvation would be unlimited, inclusive and universally applicable, not limited, exclusive and applicable only to the elect. Therefore, for the Calvinist one or the other must change – their message (if they preach a universal gospel) or their underlying theology. According to Scripture there is a single, consistent gospel call to all individuals as sinners, that is, to “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved…” (Acts 16:31, cf. Gal. 1).
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] Jeremy A. Evans, “Reflections on Determinism and Human Freedom” in David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke, eds., Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 269-271.
[2] Ibid., 271.
[3] Ibid. 271-272.
[4] Ibid. 272-273.
The Truth of the Gospel 