Unbiblical, deterministic presuppositions shape and drive Calvinist theology. We see how that these presuppositions generate biblical, logical, moral and epistemological inconsistencies which Vanhoozer has sought to address with what I see as an implausible compatibilism and a sophisticated, one-sided rhetoric taken from speech-act theory and not from Scripture itself.
The Spirit cannot sanction a false or inaccurate gospel. I surmise therefore that to the degree Calvinists are inconsistent in their gospel message, the Spirit, as the Spirit of truth, cannot be at work. To the degree their gospel is no gospel at all, the Spirit of truth is not at work. The evangelistic implications are profound. If evangelical ministry does not accurately reflect the biblical gospel as “good news,” at some point it will hinder the proclamation of “the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation.” (Rom. 1:16, 17) God is the God of truth and the Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and therefore God’s Spirit can only sanction the truth. Where the truth is, there the Holy Spirit is at work – but only there. The Spirit of truth cannot sanction error. If the gospel is the message of God and the heart of the power and ministry of the evangelical[1] Christian church, it behooves us to ask, “What is the content of the biblical gospel?” If the true gospel is the message God uses to convict and draw sinners to himself, let us then be about “defining and defending” the biblical Gospel so that it may go forth in the power of God for the salvation of sinners. The first step is to acknowledge that there are two diametrically opposed “gospels” at work in the evangelical church today. One of them cannot be the biblical gospel. As such it cannot be affirmed to the hearer by the Spirit as the true gospel.
Furthermore, the Calvinist must be theologically inconsistent in presenting the gospel, telling people of the love of God for them, that Jesus died for their sins, and that they must believe and be saved. They are compelled to preach a message inconsistent with their theology because there is no “good news” in the doctrines of an eternal salvific decree (predestination), unconditional election and an effectual call that supersedes the general call. These cannot be preached in the service of the gospel as “good news.” We therefore should be thankful for Calvinists who do not inform their gospel presentation with their theology. I believe that they cannot do so and remain logically, morally, and biblically coherent. I believe that such a presentation is epistemically empty, that is, you cannot know whether God loves you and desires you to be saved. We can be grateful that they are inconsistent in word and theology. Hence, the Calvinist must suppress broadcasting their theistic determinism until after the sinner is assured that the “good news” certainly applies to them personally. They are given the hope of salvation in the gospel, albeit inconsistent with the Calvinist soteriological doctrines.
Therefore, I submit that an evangelical emptiness prevails in Calvinist theology that can be observed in Vanhoozer’s texts. One comes away from reading Vanhoozer with the sense that there is really no “good news” of which I can be assured applies to me. There is theological information about a God that has saved some, but as far as his being assured that he is merciful and compassionate to me or others in particular, I do not know this. This can only foster despair if not outright rebellion against such a God. Indeed, C. S. Lewis was right when he emphatically pointed out that the fundamental thing is not how we think of God, but that “how God thinks of us is not only more important, but infinitely more important. Indeed, how we think of Him is of no importance except in so far as it is related to how he thinks of us.”[2] Calvinist theology leaves us wondering just how God thinks of us. That is what I refer to as the epistemic problem.
Vanhoozer’s “communicative” theology is an attempt to understand how God interacts with human persons and what is the nature of his theistic determinism and the associated doctrines of unconditional election and effectual call. In that the effectual call happens to certain persons, those persons are obviously chosen by God to be saved. Unconditional election and an “effectual call” are therefore theological corollaries, for Vanhoozer presents this “effect” as occurring apart from man’s initiative or participation. It also happens prior to faith. For faith is impossible due to the doctrine of “total inability.”
Vanhoozer must have it that God assuredly “communicates” what he wills, which is defined as having what he wills unfailingly occur in the person hearing the word of God. Vanhoozer will ensure this through his doctrine of an “effectual” call. For the Calvinist God cannot be subject to man’s rejection. This is beneath God, lest God be less than “sovereign” and his Word fail. Such a breakdown in God’s “communicative” speech-acts with man, which implies good intentions on God’s part to every hearer, is only “apparent” because behind the scenes God really has no good intentions for the non-elect as opposed to his elect to whom he will grant faith. Therefore, the Word only seems to have failed to be received, but it was never intended for those who do not receive it and of course will ultimately unfailingly be received by those for whom it is intended. “Communicative” action is supposed to relieve the problematic implications of this deterministic sovereignty. Yet the Bible testifies to human decision, willing, action and a personal God/man relationship that is incoherent with a theistic determinism of whatever type or description.
Note also, that Vanhoozer seems to be presupposing only a positive divine communicative, efficacious activity. God’s “communicative” predestination of some to eternal life is stressed at the expense of the negative implication of such predestination. He never speaks about why it is that many who hear the same “good news” are not the recipients of the “efficacious” call of the Holy Spirit. This leaves us trying to understand why a good God who communicates towards a good purpose does not act efficaciously in everyone. What is the explanation for non-receptivity of the divine communication? It must be that God simply chooses not to “persuade” that person. And this is simply a “mystery.” But is this in accord with the content of the divine-human communication? And is this coherent with that claim that such “communication” does not violate human personhood or is a genuinely “dialogical” communication? After all,
“The Author completes heroes, not by forcing them into a mold, but by releasing them so that they may freely respond to the word that simultaneously constitutes them.” (RT, 366)
Certainly this “freely respond” must include the possibility to respond negatively, in non-reception, otherwise it would not be “free” nor a “response” in the plain sense of being free and “being responsible.” It appears that someone who is “released” was in bondage and could do nothing with respect to their salvation. To be “released” tells us that they have changed their status from bondage to some kind of other potential. But when Vanhoozer says they were “released” “so that they may freely respond,” this surely must mean that they were “released” “so that they also may do otherwise than respond to the word.” That is what the word “freely” entails. If we are to take the word freely seriously, this is what Vanhoozer must mean. The language and vocabulary demand it, otherwise the insistent claim that God is not “forcing them into a mold” is simply hard to understand or accept. If this is not what Vanhoozer means he should say so. Consistent with his theology Vanhoozer should have said that “the Author, God, completes his elect “heroes” by effectually calling them so that they properly respond to him, so that through the word they are constituted unto salvation and sanctification. But this is not what Vanhoozer says. His use of certain words is a subterfuge to make his theistic determinism appear to be compatible with genuine human freedom. To “freely respond” for Vanhoozer ultimately means to act according to your desires which now have been made consonant with the will of God by the effective action of God. How it can be said that they are freely responding to “the word that simultaneously constitutes them” I do not know. Doesn’t Vanhoozer mean that they have been freed from their bondage to sin which has kept them from the regeneration that God has predestined for them? Vanhoozer claims that “heroes” “freely respond” to the word, but this is only limited to a loosing from a prior constraint or inability and proceeds to a predetermined end. Vanhoozer’s “freedom” is more like a controlled, predetermined “spiritual transfer.” It is not a freedom to respond in the normal sense of personally accepting or rejecting the word. Vanhoozer’s “heroes” “freely respond” in the way God desires because that is what God has predetermined for them to do. Whatever theological “freedom” Vanhoozer gives with the one hand he takes back with the other. Because God does not will to “release” those who are not designated as “heroes,” they will never “freely respond” to that word which does not “simultaneously constitute” them. Vanhoozer’s language and thought are hopelessly encumbered by the attempt to have speech act theory relieve the problems of a universal divine causal determinism. The determinism cannot incorporate any logical definition of human freedom. Use of words and phrases such as “obedience,” “persuade,” “permit,” “God’s patience is his free decision to make room for creaturely freedom” (RT, 450-451), “responsibility,” “answerability,” (RT, 318ff and 334ff.) along with assertions that “divine-human dialogue is genuine” (RT, 451), and claims like “I “author” myself, not in the sense of ex nihilo creation but rather by being the agent of my own actions.” (RT, 317-318), etc. are all incoherent given a universal divine causal determinism. Therefore, we saw that monological causality or coercion cannot be avoided. On Calvinism, any “freedom” spoken of reduces to the monological causal action of God alone upon the elect that dictates that they desire the transfer from the bondage of sin to the salvation that God predetermined for them and will irresistibly or effectually bring to pass in them. Therefore, Calvinist compatibilism that defines human freedom as doing what you desire with God determining your desires, doesn’t make sense. Neither does linguistic theory deliver Calvinism from this monological causality, but only makes things more complicated. The whole Calvinist scheme goes biblically far afield at the point of its universal divine causal determinism. This is enough to conclude it is unbiblical.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] The word “evangelical,” after all, comes from the Greek, euangélion, which means “good news.”
[2] C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 10.
The Truth of the Gospel 