The above discussion and other points yet to be examined involve the crucial question of what is the precise content of the gospel message according to Vanhoozer as a Calvinist. This is a critical issue because in light of Vanhoozer’s “effectual call” we are left wondering what it is he could say to people that is “good news” and yet remain theologically consistent. There doesn’t seem to be any “good news” in Calvinist determinism. Vanhoozer maintains that,
“What finally makes the call effectual is its content – the story of Jesus as ministered by the Spirit.” (RT, 374)
But the question that continually presents itself in light of the doctrine of an “effectual call,” is what is the precise content of this “story of Jesus?” What are the actual words of the “good news” of the gospel that Vanhoozer would speak that are logically and morally consistent with an “effectual call?” Knowing what this content is has bearing upon the meaning and relevance of many of his theological descriptions and the consistency of his theological statements. It is important to know what would be said to people given the Calvinist theological presupposition that God himself, from whom the message comes, does not intend all persons to receive salvation. The veracity of God’s character and the truth of God’s Word are at stake here. And ignorance of who are among the non-elect misses the point of what constitutes truthful speech. Words that are true correspond to reality. The words must correspond to the realty of the situation of the persons to whom they are spoken. Depending therefore on the words Vanhoozer would speak in giving the “gospel,” a truth correspondence may not exist for the non-elect hearers. In other words, what is said should accurately reflect the real situation of that man before God. Vanhoozer’s gospel content may not be coherent with his doctrines of unconditional election and an “effectual call.” We are not only concerned to affirm that it is the Spirit that makes the call “effectual” in a “communicative” manner (on the condition of faith) and thus suitable for humans as persons, but whether the content of the communication is also suitable for humans as persons and in accord with the Spirit of God as the Spirit of Truth. Is the message true for the hearer? Are the words spoken true for the hearer?
Hence, upon what “gospel” content does the Spirit work to effect salvation? It is crucial to know this content to determine whether or not the doctrine of an “effectual” call is coherent with what is proclaimed in a “general” or “gospel” call. The point is that any offer, invitation, summons or promise of God of salvation would certainly be a falsehood for the non-elect. Calvinists generally avoid dealing with this question of the precise content of their gospel message, which only leads one to suspect that there is rational and moral incoherence between their “gospel” message and their theology of unconditional election and an “effectual call.”
Therefore, it behooves us to inquire into what is the precise content of “the story of Jesus” that one would tell another so that the “call” can be made “effectual” by the Spirit. If the content is so important, what is it? What is the precise message of Jesus as “the corporeal discourse of the triune God?” (RT, 360, 361) Reading carefully through Remythologizing Theology for the precise content of the “good news” we find the following statements:
“The gospel on this view is the execution in time of God’s eternal self-determination to communicate his light and life to what is not God: the human creature whom the Father elects in the Son.
What here comes to the fore is the sheer generosity of the triune God in the free determination to include human creatures as recipients of the Father’s love in the Son through the Spirit. The good news is that the Father and Son agree to share the loving communion that is the perfection of their own life with others…Election is thus the free and joyful collaboration of the three persons to initiate a relationship with the human creature, to identify with the human creature, and consummate the relationship with the human creature. The God of the Christian gospel is the Father, Son, and Spirit working in perfect communion for an even greater communion.” (RT, 259)
How are we to take Vanhoozer’s words here? Is the “human creature whom the Father elects in the Son” a reference to all persons (as in Barth’s understanding of election) or a limited number of elect individuals? If Vanhoozer meant the later, which his theology demands, why wasn’t he more precise and why didn’t he use the plural when referring to these elect and say, “the particular human creatures whom the Father elects in the Son?” Furthermore, are the connotations in the following statement about the Triune God’s “sheer generosity…to include human creatures as recipients of the Father’s love…” accurate or even coherent in light of an “effectual call” by which certain “human creatures” are excluded from being recipients of the Father’s love?” What is the scope of the phrase “human creatures?” All persons or only a limited elect? One would think that such “sheer generosity” would encompass all sinners, each of which are undeserving of such “generosity.” Who are the “others” with which the “Father and Son agree to share the loving communion that is the perfection of their own life?” Vanhoozer is vague and one-sided here with respect to the meaning of the gospel and election. Is his ambiguity intentional? It probably is. For if Vanhoozer’s “gospel” is the “good” news that God has elected some out of all of undeserving humanity to be saved, then there is not much of the “good” left in that “news.”. But we can see how this “good” news diminishes to simply “news” if we can’t know that it applies to us and the one proclaiming it doesn’t know to whom it applies. Perhaps the reality is that we are among those predestined to hell. On unconditional election, that is a real possibility. Now the one-sided gospel being presented by Vanhoozer as “good” news becomes bad news when it is placed along-side its necessary corollary – the reality of the mass of non-elect reprobates. The point is that Vanhoozer must be referring to a limited elect and could have resolved this ambiguity simply by speaking consistently with his theology, but then what happens to the gospel as truly “good news?” He could have said,
“The gospel on this view is the execution in time of God’s eternal self-determination to communicate his light and life to what is not God: to those specific persons whom the Father has elected in the Son.
What comes to the fore here is the sheer generosity of the triune God in the free determination to include his elect human creatures as recipients of the Father’s love in the Son through the Spirit. The good news is that the Father and Son agree to share the loving communion that is the perfection of their own life with others he has predestined to salvation…Election is thus the free and joyful collaboration of the three persons to initiate a relationship with the human creatures he has chosen, to identify with these human creatures, and consummate the relationship with the human creatures he has elected. The God of the Christian gospel is the Father, Son, and Spirit working in perfect communion for an even greater communion with those he predestined to eternal life with him.”
This would be precisely what Calvinist theology teaches. Vanhoozer has made it clear throughout his Remythologizing Theology that the relation of God with “the human creature” is only “consummated” by an “effectual call.” An “effectual call” presupposes an unconditional election, which presupposes an unchangeable determination by God to save some and not others. His underlying theology certainly strains the meaning of the words and phrases used which project a connotation of salvific inclusivity inconsistent with an “effectual call.” So, Vanhoozer himself, via his doctrine of an effectual call, has required us to read his statements in a very deterministic, restrictive and qualified way, yet he seems hesitant to clearly state his Calvinist soteriology in the context of discussing the gospel and election. He certainly strains the meaning of the word “gospel” which means “good news.” He presents the “good news” as Father and Son sharing “the loving communion that is the perfection of their own life with others” and “consummating the relationship with the human creature” and “working towards an even greater communion.” On what basis do the Father and Son do this sharing of their own life? The biblical answer is upon the person’s faith response. Again, Vanhoozer could have spoken consistent with his theology and thus more forthrightly, but he did not. He did not because he cannot and retain any “good news.” He therefore offers up a semblance of “good news” by speaking obscurely about “the human creature” rather than speaking with theological precision and clarity about the elect. All that Vanhoozer has said refers only to the elect “human creature.” Therefore, instead of speaking nebulously about “the human creature” Vanhoozer could have clearly spoken about “his elect,” “his chosen ones” or “those he has predestined” but he does not. I believe it is because he cannot and still have good news.[1] He cannot reconcile the gospel as “good news” to the hearer while also claiming that God’s “general call” is quite ineffective unless it is accompanied by an “effectual call” which only those predestined to salvation will receive. Here are more of Vanhoozer’s statements about the gospel:
“This is the gospel: that God freely and graciously decides to communicate something of what he is to what he is not. The love of God is God’s active disposition to communicate the Father’s life-giving communion with the Son to others in the Spirit.” (RT, 270)
Note that the language is somewhat abstract and vague. The “others” mentioned are of course only the elect. And again,
“Communion with God through union with Christ is the heart of the gospel: the substance of faith, the prime covenant blessing, the key to union with God, and humanity’s ultimate hope in life.” (RT, 283)
Note that by the use of the word “humanity” Vanhoozer can either convey the idea that all people can find hope in Christ, or this generic language allows him conceptual room for his doctrine of unconditional election without having to speak about it. Which is it? Well, it can’t be the former. We know that according to Calvinist soteriology all people (“humanity”) cannot find their “ultimate hope in life” in Christ because God has not determined nor provided a salvation that is for all people (“humanity”). It is only for a limited number of elect persons. So, we must conclude that Vanhoozer intends his generic description (“humanity”) to hide his deterministic doctrines of predestination, unconditional election, effectual calling, etc. without having to speak of them because he knows there is no good news in these doctrines. What actual words can Vanhoozer genuinely and honestly speak to people so they too can know they can participate in this “communion with God through union with Christ?” I don’t think he can honestly bring this “gospel” down to a personal level due to his Calvinist soteriology. Note what is missing. It is the indiscriminate application to the individual of “the Father’s life-giving communion with the Son.” That event just happens “to others.” Vanhoozer can provide no assurance of salvation to all persons. He cannot make it personal and individual. There is no good news in Calvinist soteriology. Calvinism is incompatible with the “good news,” or gospel, as presented in Scripture. And therefore, again, I submit that Vanhoozer is being disingenuous here. He ought to clearly articulate what his Calvinist soteriological doctrines demand. He continues.
“The gospel is not only (1) the good news that the end of the hero’s physical life is not the end of the hero’s story, but (2) the even better news that the Author does not simply summarize my life-as-lived (as I would if writing an autobiography), but consummates it by telling the story of my life as taken up into the perfect life of Jesus Christ.” (RT, 328-9)
Using the literary analogy, Vanhoozer presumes “the Author” has good intentions for himself and that his life is to be consummated “in the perfect life of Jesus Christ.” Can he give all others that assurance in his “gospel?” He cannot. And it is this crucial element of the personal and universal application of the gospel as presented in Scripture that is missing in Vanhoozer’s message due to his exclusive, deterministic soteriological doctrines. We still don’t know the precise content of the “good news.” We have a description of its effects. I take it that number 1 above refers to eternal life, but number 2 is obscure. It probably refers to the elect, of which Vanhoozer presupposes himself to be a member, A component of Vanhoozer’s gospel is that “the good news that the end of the hero’s physical life is not the end of the hero’s story.” How is that “good news” for the non-elect whose life God himself has determined never to be consummated as a story to be “taken up into the perfect life of Jesus Christ?”
“The gospel is the good news that the divine Author has become a human hero: Jesus Christ.” (RT, 356)
“The gospel mythos is the good news that the Author freely and lovingly consummates human heroes by entering into the story himself with both hands, Son and Spirit.” (RT, 356-7)
“The gospel is the good news that God freely makes common the Father’s communion with the Son to others through the Spirit.” (RT, 488)
Note the following observations about these “gospel” statements and definitions.
These statements are particularly nebulous such that they can refer to “human heroes” whom “the Author freely and lovingly consummates” without directly referring to the elect, which are those Vanhoozer as a Calvinist must be referring to. But what is the precise content of the gospel “mythos” that could be communicated to the individual sinner that “makes common the Father’s communion with the Son to others through the Spirit?” Who are the “others” for which this is done? Are you and I included in these “others?” What are the logical implications of an “effectual call” upon these statements? Can a message of “good news,” “communion” and “consummation” be coherent with an “effectual call” that excludes many on the basis that God has not intended to save them? If there is a message coherent with such a doctrine, what is it?
Vanhoozer leaves us with too many questions unanswered in light of his underlying soteriology. The gospel is more than merely the news that it is God’s desire to communicate “something of what he is with what he is not,” or that “the Author freely and lovingly consummates human heroes.” Neither is it an ambiguous “making common the Father’s communion with the Son to others through the Spirit.” Behind all these statements of “humanity’s ultimate hope in life” lies the persistent question of what actually is Vanhoozer’s message of “hope?” What message of “hope” is consistent with the mysterious unknown of an unconditional election and “effectual call?”
Conspicuously missing in Vanhoozer’s Remythologizing Theology is the precise content of the gospel in accord with its biblical definition as “good news.” For all Vanhoozer’s talk about God’s desire for “communication” and “communion” he hardly ever provides us with the substance or content of the gospel message God has communicated. When he does attempt this, it is more like a description along the lines of literary theory rather than a clear message that would be “good news” to sinners. Vanhoozer writes,
“The gospel is the good news that the Author has become a human hero: Jesus Christ.” (RT, 356)
He also says,
“The gospel is the good news that the Author freely and lovingly consummates human heroes by entering into the story himself with both hands Son and Spirit.” (RT, 356-357)
We can see that we do not gain any assurance that the message of “good news” applies to all those hearing it or to ourselves personally and individually. Yet this universal intent of salvation rooted in God’s universal grace and love for all sinners is the biblical element that makes the gospel truly good news. Rather, Vanhoozer clearly communicates by his doctrine of an “effectual call” that this loving consummation of “human heroes” does not apply to all persons, and therefore I submit to you that the “gospel” becomes merely the news that God has predestined specific people to eternal salvation and all others to eternal damnation. Thus, he speaks with ambiguity about to whom the “news” does apply. Of course the biblical gospel has reference to “human heroes” and “others” and is “humanity’s ultimate hope,” but that is by virtue of its inclusion of all persons. But Vanhoozer has an exclusionary message and therefore must remain ambiguous as to whom it applies. The point is that this Calvinist message of exclusion is antithetical to the gospel message of inclusion which is an indispensable element making it truly good news,rather than just news.
Therefore, we wonder what Vanhoozer would actually say to people in presenting the “good news” of his “gospel” to them? Could he assure you and me that God loves us in the Son and we can have hope in this life and be “taken up into the perfect life of Christ.?” I don’t know how he can. He may speak of “humanity’s ultimate hope,” but that only refers to the “elect humanity.” But the non-elect are human too! This is obviously a serious problem for the Calvinist. If he does speak in universal terms about God’s love and the offer of salvation in Christ (which most Calvinist’s do), he is caught in a disingenuous “speech-act” bind, which, in speaking on behalf of God, implicates God in that disingenuousness. On one hand, for him to bring “good news,” he must tell people the biblically warranted true statements that “God loves you” (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8), “Jesus died for you” (Jn. 3:16, 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb. 2:9; Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 1 Thess. 5:9, 10; 2 Pet. 2:1), “repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:14, 15), “you must be born again” (Jn. 3:7), “be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20), “you can be saved” (Rom. 10:13; Isa. 45:22), “put your trust in Christ for salvation” (1 Pet. 2:6), et al. But in doing so he is clearly being disingenuous in light of his soteriology of limitation, unconditional inclusion, and arbitrary exclusion. On the other hand he ought to preach consistent with his deterministic theology, but that would reduce the gospel to the “not-so-good-news” that, “whatever this ‘general call’ you are hearing might be saying to you, it is an ‘effectual call’ that you need, and God only grants that to his elect. In short, you need to be among the elect to be saved. Therefore, you must wait to see if you are among the elect by experiencing something like an ‘effectual call.’” This is hardly the biblical gospel! This is very troubling especially in light of statements like this, “A truth claim is a statement on a mission – to be precise, a statement on a mission of truth, whose goal is to procure universal acknowledgement.” (FT, 338)
Now, of course no Calvinist would evangelize or witness by giving people the five points of Calvinism. And that is precisely the point. Calvinist soteriology cannot be put in the service of a truly biblical gospel evangelism. The Calvinist soteriological doctrines are at odds with the gospel as “good news.” And ironically, even though the Calvinist soteriological doctrines are full and final explanation of how a person becomes saved, they can never be proclaimed evangelistically, that is, as a message of truly “good news.” Calvinist soteriology simply cannot be preached consistent with the gospel biblically defined as “good news.” Indeed, it can only be embraced as a post-evangelistic theology. For whatever reasons people may embrace Calvinist soteriology, they do so only after they have heard a non-Calvinist evangelistic message of truly good news by which they were saved. Calvinism is at odds with the content of the “good news” of salvation found in Christ and received by faith. It is therefore at odds with the essence of a truly evangelical (i.e., “good news”) ministry. The implied deterministic doctrines of unconditional election and an “effectual call” cannot be incorporated into the gospel message as “good news.”[1]
Vanhoozer writes,
“…it is hard to miss the recurring biblical theme that God wills to communicate and make himself known: “The word of the Lord came to…”; “the Lord said…”. Theology is ultimately irresponsible if it fails either to attend to what God says or to think about the nature of the one who addresses us.” (RT, xvi)
Given this statement, I wish Vanhoozer would tell us precisely what the God who “wills to communicate and make himself known” is saying to all persons. I am curious about this because I fail to see how, given his theology of an “effectual call” and unconditional election, Vanhoozer can speak a message that is logically or morally consistent with the “good news”. This has definite bearing upon doing responsible theology. We agree with Vanhoozer. As I pointed out in the first section we want to think correctly about the nature of ‘the one who addresses us.’ But this requires us to correctly know what ‘the one who addresses us” is thinking about us and therefore saying to us. God’s thoughts, intentions and words to us should be knowable, consistent, faithful, trustworthy and true. The gospel, in order to be “good news,” requires an assurance about what God thinks about, communicates, and intends for us. If God is good, his thoughts must be thoughts that are well intentioned. But with his Calvinist doctrines Vanhoozer has placed any such knowledge that is ultimately meaningful and essential for us – knowledge of our standing with God and individual eternal destiny – out of reach. Responsible theology is also logically and morally consistent theology. It is integrative theology. It is theology that seeks to unify the whole scope of biblical truths and not dichotomize them or leave them in abeyance. This statement that “God wills to communicate and make himself known” is itself inconsistent with Vanhoozer’s doctrines of unconditional election and an “effectual call.” Does God really will “to communicate and make himself known” if he has determined not to communicate with the multitude of people he predestined to eternal damnation? And what difference does it make if “God wills to communicate and make himself known” if what he says is “good news” only for some and we do not know if that “good news” applies to us? What difference does it make if “God wills to communicate and make himself known” but it is also a fact that this same God has arbitrarily predestined certain people to hell? “God wills to communicate and make himself known” is hardly a comforting statement in light of Vanhoozer’s limited, exclusive Calvinist soteriology.
Furthermore, if we interpret Vanhoozer’s statement consistent with Vanhoozer’s Calvinist doctrines, the phrase “God wills to communicate and make himself known” should read “God wills to communicate and make himself known only to those he has predestined to communicate with.” If this is what Vanhoozer should have said, which is consistent with his theology and would have made his point clear, then his original statement, like many others, is quite ambiguous to the point of being disingenuous. It simply lacks clarity and when taken naturally speaks a very different message. We would think that if “God wills to communicate and make himself known,” then there is no reason why he would arbitrarily will to do so with some people and not others, especially with respect to the gospel. If this is what Vanhoozer means to say, and we surmise it must be if he wishes to speak with theological consistency, then it is a prime example of the lack of forthrightness in Calvinist speech. I conclude that for Vanhoozer the precise content of the gospel message cannot be delineated without creating serious incoherence with his Calvinist soteriology. What Vanhoozer has not said is just as important for a proper understanding and assessment of his Remythologizing Theology as what he has so eloquently laid out for us.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] See 2 Cor. 1:12-20 for Paul’s claim of complete transparency in his writing and the assurance of all of God’s promises in Christ. Murray J. Harris writes the following in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
“12-14 …he [Paul] asserts that in none of his correspondence…did his meaning become apparent only by “reading between the lines.” Rather, his meaning, which lay on the surface, could be understood simply be reading. (v.13a).”
“18 “Neither in proclaiming the good news to them nor telling them of his travel plans was his language “an ambiguous blend of Yes and No” (NEB). How could the messenger of a faithful God vacillate between a reassuring “Yes” and a disconcerting “No” or deliver a message that was not an emphatic “Yes”?”
“19,20 The message originally proclaimed at Corinth (Acts 18:5)…centered in none other than God’s Son in whom inconsistency and indecision had no place…Indeed, in and through him (en auto) the divine “Yes” has come into effect as a permanent reality (gegonen, perfect tense, v.19), because all God’s promises (cf. 7:1, Rom. 9:4, 15:8), whatever their number, find their fulfillment or affirmative in him (v.20a). “They are “Yes” in Christ,” since he forms the climax and summation of the divine self-revelation. That is why (dio kai), in their corporate worship offered to God through Christ, Christians joyfully utter the “Yes” or “Amen” of agreement and consecration (cf. Rev 1:7; 3:14; 22:20). Such a response enhances God’s glory (v.20b).” – Murray J. Harris, 2 Corinthians in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols.,ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 10:323-325.
See also James Daane, The Freedom of God: A Study of Election and Pulpit, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973).
The Truth of the Gospel 