The compatibilist is convinced that it is enough for human freedom simply that God changes the desires of a person so that what they desire is placed in accord with the divine will. But this comes up short of the biblical witness to human freedom and is simply another version of causal theological determinism. The Calvinist strategy here is to link human freedom with the ability to do what you desire, then have God determine the desires, thereby being able to claim God is “sovereign” and humans have free will. The problem here is that the Calvinist is emphasizing the utility of the will and not the person as a self as the source of the willing.
Now, Vanhoozer affirms that God changes peoples desires according to his will, but to avoid the unpleasant nature of this change he stresses the “communicative” and “persuasive” manner by which God works his will in his human creatures. He needs this divinely determined change of desires to be appropriate for human beings as persons. This avoids the negative connotations of “force” or “coercion.” Acting from their changes desires therefore, it can be said that they are acting freely of their own will. The result is that the individual desires to do the will of God and since doing what you desire is the definition the Calvinist has given to “free will” or “acting freely” then the person has human freedom and God accomplishes his will or gets his way with them. Hence God’s will is accomplished, his sovereignty, defined deterministically, is upheld and the person through whom his sovereign will is done acts freely in doing so. Sovereignty and human freedom are both maintained and are seen to be compatible. The primary objection here is that it can technically be said that the person acts according to their desires, but it cannot coherently be said that they act freely according to their will. The Calvinist constructs a convoluted definition of what it means to act freely. To act freely cannot be merely defined as “doing what you desire to do” with God determining your desires, and from this make the claim that God remains deterministically sovereign and persons have free will. I think you can see that this is artificially constructed scheme that the only kick the determinism down the road in an attempt to justify theistic determinism in light of the overwhelming biblical witness to human free will.
Therefore, one thing the compatibilist position cannot adequately explain is the biblical dynamic of moral responsibility and moral effort where in order to be rationally coherent the actions must originate in the self and not simply by external or internal influences acting upon the person to change their desires. The Bible depicts God as holding persons responsible for their actions and moral efforts are put forth contrary to one’s desires. Therefore, at times the self is the sole author of an action and there is the ability to act otherwise.
Vanhoozer’s compatibilism is Calvinist theological determinism expressed through “speech-act” theory. The “speech-act” theory itself does not resolve the fundamental problems generated between a Calvinist deterministic sovereignty and a biblical view of human freedom. This is evident in the way that at various times Vanhoozer speaks ambiguously, incoherently, and always from the one side of “light, life and hope” of his deterministic theology.
Now, “compatibilism” is not necessary to retain God’s sovereignty in light of human freedom, for God’s sovereignty need not be understood as deterministic, human freedom is not absolute, and the reality of accepting or rejecting salvation as a decision of the will is not meritorious. Although fallen, each person remains an individuated self to which God can communicate a message of “light, life and hope” to which that person themselves can and must respond. That is the purpose of giving a message. That is the purposes of communication and revelation. It is a person’s refusal to respond positively that is the explanation for any “apparent breakdown in divine human communication.” (RT, 361) There is no breakdown “in divine human communication.” It is a failure of reception on the part of people, and a failure of reception does not logically or biblically demand an absolute inability to receive. (Jn. 1:6-13; 3:14-18, 36, 5:34-47, 7:17, 8:24, 12:36-50, 19:35, 20:3-31; Acts 28:23-31; Rom. 1:16-32, et al.) This would be an unbiblical soteriological conclusion to draw from the biblical doctrine of sin. A failure of reception is not a failure in communication. God hasn’t failed (Rom. 9-11). The sinner is able to receive and respond to the communication, for that is the purpose of the communication. It is a message for sinners as sinners. It is not a message for sinners as elect or not elect. The purpose and potential for receiving the communication must be discerned by the biblical content and definition of the communication. All of this conveys the clear message that it is the person who either accepts or willfully rejects the gospel as “good news.” They refuse to believe what has been clearly communicated. It is recorded for us in Mark’s gospel, “And he [Jesus] looked around at them in anger, grieved at their hardness of heart…” (Mk. 3:5) The clear implication throughout the gospels is that Jesus desires all those hearing and seeing him to be saved. (cf. 1 Tim 2:3-4; 4:10) When Jesus pronounces the seven “woes” on the scribes and Pharisees in Mt. 23 he implies both their moral responsibility and the possibility of their salvation. First, Jesus pronounces the rule of the kingdom of God which presupposes sole authorship of one’s actions. “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (v. 12) This is something within the possibility of every person as a sinner. Then Jesus states, “But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.” (v. 13) This is an astounding soteriological statement! Obviously, the eternal destinies of the scribes and the Pharisees and many who were held captive by their teachings were certainly not predetermined by God to heaven or hell and these words render an “effectual call” incoherent. Jesus even views these Jewish leaders as responsible for the spiritual and eternal destiny of others. (Thus, Jesus’ warning to beware of their teaching, cf. Mt. 16:5-12) The remedy was that they were to “First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.” (v. 26) Furthermore, this is the context in which we have Jesus lamenting over “Jerusalem,” that is, his people. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under his wings, and you would not!” (v. 37) Hardly a predestinarian viewpoint. One could go on and on through the scriptures to show that Calvinism is unbiblical on the basis of a hermeneutic that takes coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction as fundamental to discerning proper and valid interpretations.
Due to Vanhoozer’s Calvinist soteriological presuppositions, his discussion labors under misconceptions about the content of the gospel, the nature of man and faith, and the nature of the God / world relation. The Bible presents it as the norm that God performs his will through those willing to do so. (Jn. 6:17; cf. Mt. 21:23-27) To give biblical definition to how a sinner responds to God’s communication is to speak not only about the Spirit’s work but also about the sinner as a person with a will; as one whose heart and mind are soil into which is sown the seed of the word of God (Mt. 13:1-23; Lk. 8:4-15) The only way one can respond to the seed of the word of God is by the impartial work of the Spirit who is present in the word. (see Rom. 8:10-13) But what makes hearing the word of God a “communicative” or “dialogical” event is that the person may accept or reject what the Spirit makes possible. Therefore, the Parable of the Sower is more about the soil of one’s heart as much as the seed of the word of God. The Bible is clear that the Spirit’s effectual work in salvation occurs on the basis of a response of faith. In that the gospel is a message for sinners, each sinner may, of themselves, because they are a genuine self, respond according to the way they have prepared their hearts and in the way they continue to choose to respond. There are various hazards in this world to the sowing of the seed of the word, yet we should receive the instruction and Jesus’ challenge to be people “who, hearing the word, hold it fast in and honest and good heart…” (Lk. 8:15) [1] The Spirit works according to the content of the gospel and that gospel content presents “good news” to everyone and it calls for a response. That is the one and only call that has reference to a person’s eternal destiny. Biblically speaking, here is where we find the reason for the negative reaction to what is proclaimed. It is not simply a negative reaction due to the absence of an “effectual call” and the darkness of sin, but a negative personal response, an act of rejection by the person as an individual self to what is being heard of the light that has come to dispel their individual and our collective darkness. (Jn. 1:9) This is the assessment of the gospel writer, “And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” (Mt. 13:58)
When there is a positive response of faith, this cannot rightly be associated with a meritorious work or contributing to one’s salvation. This is an unbiblical notion. But we sense that such notions shape the Reformed Calvinist path Vanhoozer feels compelled to travel. But we also observe the inevitable outcome – the logical, moral, epistemological, and biblical incoherence of Calvinism’s universal divine causal determinism. Vanhoozer needs to incorporate a more biblical account of the nature of man as an individuated self in conjunction with the biblical content of the gospel and the nature of faith rather than simply presupposing that an “effectual call” is a biblical doctrine. It is this inevitable determinism that requires a kinder, gentler “communicative” portrayal of how God relates to his human creatures. But in attempting to deliver this “communicative” theology by way of an “effectual call” Vanhoozer only takes us full circle again to an inevitable, unbiblical, theistic determinism. He ought to try a different biblical and theological road that does not have theistic determinism as its non-negotiable doctrine. If he did so he would find that many of his biblical and theological struggles would dissipate. The incoherences, inconsistencies, and contradictions causes by his Calvinism would be gone. The gospel as truly “good news” would be restored.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] Related to this is the nuanced reference to God’s choice or election of “the poor” in James 2:5, “Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?” In the context of warnings against showing “partiality” and making “distinctions” among people this certainly speaks against God having chosen certain individuals to salvation. Interestingly, the idea is that certain individuals, namely the poor who are inclined to recognize their need, are more readily open to the message of God’s love and grace than the “rich” and proud who need nothing. The point is that our life circumstances can be an aid to faith and our receptivity to the gospel or a hindrance according to how we have let them shape our characters and dispositions. This implies that our will, what we decide in each circumstance, further shapes our character such that it becomes formed in a certain way, whether for good or evil. These decisions are not without the presence and aid of the Spirit of grace that permeates our existence. But in whatever position we find ourselves the gospel meets us there as applicable to us as sinners in need of salvation. The content of the message teaches us the truth about ourselves and requires the recognition of sin and helplessness and the acknowledgment that salvation is designed, accomplished, and circumscribed by God alone in Christ. James’ point is, generally speaking, that the “poor” are more receptive than the “rich.” (see the account of the rich, young ruler in Mt 18:16-30; cf. Mk. 10:21) Certainly James is not excluding the wealthy from salvation, therefore the truth remains that faith is a universal possibility. Neither is James including all the poor in salvation by virtue of their poverty. The point James is making is that due to the way God has designed salvation, a certain existential reality – “poverty” – inclines the human element involved in the response to be more ready to believe and receptive to the message. Hindrances exist, and a positive response to God is realistically more difficult for some than others. This affirms that there are various human elements in the dynamic of salvation. Metaphorically they have to do with the type and degree of preparation of the soil of our heart. Decisions for habits and habits for characters. Be careful as to which kind of character you are developing. Yet our wills are the focal point. As sole author of our actions and able to make contrary choices, our will can rise to duty against our formed characters and by the Spirit’s presence and power choose a positive response to the “good news.” This is a distinctly spiritual happening because the Holy Spirit is active in the dynamic of hearing the gospel. But it is finally a decision the person must make of their own will.
Paul contrasts God “choices” with “worldly standards” when he writes, “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:26-31) Indeed, “many are called, but few are chosen.”
The Truth of the Gospel 