Vanhoozer writes,
“A Christian doctrine of God will not be content with conceiving God as one who unilaterally moves people about like so many otherwise inert chess pieces. That way fatalism lies. But neither does God let the pieces take control of the board. Rather, God convincingly persuades some of the pieces freely to play of their own accord in a way that so corresponds to God’s will that we can speak (albeit hesitantly) in terms of dual agency. It is in such dialogical interaction that we best see the way in which God exercises his sovereignty and humans their freedom.” (RT, 367, italics mine)
The above quote betrays a certain fear that given real, meaningful human agency God may lose control over his world. What Vanhoozer does to preserve a semblance of human freedom while not sacrificing his absolute theistic determinism is to mingle words and phrases such as “freely,” “of their own accord,” “dialogical interaction,” and “dual agency” with deterministic statements such as “convincingly persuades” and “in a way that so corresponds to God’s will.” He is attempting to incorporate some form of human freedom into an impregnable theistic determinism. But he fails, for in the end he can only “speak in terms of dual agency” – “albeit hesitatingly!”
But there is a clear biblical teaching that confirms, not hesitatingly but certainly, that substantial free will agency is granted by God to man. We see this very clearly in the biblical witness to the nature of faith. Vanhoozer reached into his Calvinist theological hat to put out an unbiblical doctrine described as the “effectual call” to provide support for the compatibility between a deterministic sovereignty and human freedom. In that his starting point was unbiblical, his conclusions are perplexing and incoherent. If we take a genuinely biblical doctrine, that of saving faith, as a starting point for an examination of the relation of divine sovereignty and human freedom we arrive at completely different conclusions than the incoherent ones provided by Calvinist theology. We arrive at conclusions that are logically, linguistically, morally, epistemically, and biblically coherent.
Conspicuously absent in Vanhoozer’s discussions of God’s love and the gospel call is the biblical emphasis that salvation is obtained through faith as a genuine, personal response to God. Vanhoozer does mention faith, but with an obscure deterministic twist. “The Holy Spirit effects our union with Christ by giving us the faith to lay hold of him (so Calvin).” Faith is “something we do while it happens to us.” (RT, 290-291, italics mine) For Vanhoozer (so Calvin) the presence or exercise of faith is an impossibility for any but the elect. It is something God produces in the elect only as part of their predestined salvation, for as the Confession states, man “is altogether passive therein.”[1] Vanhoozer writes,
“The Holy Spirit effects our union with Christ by giving us the faith to lay hold of him (so Calvin). To be “in” Christ is thus to be in a process wherein one is both doing and being done-to.” (RT, 290, “giving us the faith” italics mine)
According to Vanhoozer (and Calvin), obviously the “doing” by “us” does not include our initial believing. Faith must be “done-to” us by the Spirit. Vanhoozer clearly states that faith is given to us by the Holy Spirit. We therefore ask the following questions: Who is the “us” that the Holy Spirit gives faith to? On what basis does the Holy Spirit decide who particularly to give faith to? And what does the “doing” consist of? Can one resist the being “done-to” by virtue of the fact that Vanhoozer has also said that one is also “doing,” or is this process irresistible? If it involves the sinner believing, is any “doing” of faith by us only subsequent to the being “done-to?” If sinners cannot respond to God in their unregenerate state, are they regenerated first (“done-to”) in order to be granted “the faith to lay hold of him [Christ]” and begin their “doing?” If regeneration is necessary and prior to faith, what is the purpose of faith? If faith must be granted to the sinner by God, then who actually is doing the believing? Is faith an active phenomenon or are we “totally passive therein” with respect to the call to salvation as the Westminster Confession maintains? Also, is what was begun solely by the work of the Spirit continued in a synergism between God’s work (“being done-to”) and man’s faith (“doing”) subsequent to initial faith (“being done-to”)? How does this view of the nature of faith affect the content of the gospel message? And most importantly does the Scripture teach and does the content of the gospel “summons” convey the message that faith is something that God must give the hearer as one of the elect in order for them to be saved? We return again to the first essential question, “Who is the “us” that the Holy Spirit gives faith to?” All this is very perplexing, and I just don’t see how it can be reconciled with what Scripture teaches us about the nature of faith.
For Vanhoozer, only the elect who are predestined by God to salvation are granted saving faith. In contrast, the universal gospel call, and therefore the possibility of a faith response from all, is everywhere taught and presupposed throughout Scripture. Jack Cottrell writes,
“Scripture itself says nothing about individuals being predestined to believe. As Watson says, “We have no such doctrine in Scripture as the election of individuals unto faith.” He adds, “This predestination, then, is not of persons ‘unto faith and obedience,’ but of believing and obedient persons unto eternal glory.”[2] As Forster and Marston put it, predestination “does not concern who should, or should not, become Christians, but rather their destiny as Christians.”[3] They point out that Ephesians 1:4 says God chose us in Christ, not to be put into Christ.[4][5]”
As such, Reformed Calvinist theological determinism seriously distorts the essential message of the Bible which is that all sinners can obtain salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, salvation is appropriated by a response of faith to the Word of our salvation. Faith is the only appropriate response of sinners to a gracious salvation provided for us by God alone. In that God universally calls all sinners to believe the “good news” and holds them accountable for their unbelief, faith is therefore the one condition upon which salvation is granted. All this speaks against a deterministic, unconditional, limited soteriology that is exclusive of many based upon an unconditional election and effectual call. God’s salvation is not appropriated apart from a genuine, personal, individual faith response by which a person receives what has been provided by God in Christ. It is how God designed salvation to be. It is found in Christ and can be appropriated by faith. One’s eternal destiny has not been determined by a decree of God in eternity past.
Important here is a correct understanding of the nature of human freedom and the nature of the human will. We also can see how the Calvinist’s presupposition of total human inability forces a redefinition of faith from being a genuine human response accompanied by the Spirit, to God’s predestined gift to the elect as part of a deterministic soteriology. Vanhoozer writes,
“…creatures stand not in perichoretic but participatory relation to God’s being-in-communicative-act. Everything depends on how one understands the way in which the human creatures take part in God’s communicative activity such that they actually receive God’s saving light, life, and love. Everything thus depends on getting the ontology of being-in-communion with God right…” (RT, 271)
Even though we may not stand in “perichoretic” relationship to God, to claim that we stand in “participatory relation to God” is at odds with the deterministic relation to God that Vanhoozer maintains through the “effectual call.” How do human beings “take part in God’s communicative activity?” According to Vanhoozer they must be “effectually called.” To be “effectually called” they have to be predestined by God to salvation. Such predestination is certainly unconditional, for it was decided by God “before the foundation of the world.” How is it then “participatory” except that God only involves his elect in a relation with himself by changing their desires and will to act as he wills? For a multitude of persons there will be no “participatory relation” with God whatsoever. By this same God of “communicative activity” whose communication is “light, life, and love,” the non-elect have been intentionally predestined to eternal “darkness, death, and hate.” The necessary corollary to Vanhoozer’s theological propositions is simply overlooked.
With reference to becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) Vanhoozer speaks of “conditions.”
“What does “partaking of” or participating (koinonia) mean? What are its conditions…?” (“Conditions” italics mine, RT, 282)
But we have observed that by definition an “effectual” call has no conditions at least as far as the persons themselves are concerned. It is based in a person’s unconditional election by God to salvation. Persons are completely passive with respect to their salvation. It is God who grants faith as a “gift.” Vanhoozer goes on to eliminate any conditionality by his definition of God’s “grace.”
“Participating in God is by grace – God’s free self-communication to those who have no claim on him in which he favors his recipients with a share in his Son and Spirit – yet it involves human activity (freedom). ‘I participate’ is ultimately a middle-voice verb. We participate in God as we actively image God…yet it is ultimately the Spirit who recreates or ‘makes common’ the image of God in us by efficaciously ministering the word of God. Saving grace is God’s self-communicative, redemptive, and oriented-to-communion action “in Christ” through the Spirit towards undeserving others.” (RT, 282-283)
As a Reformed theologian Vanhoozer defines God’s “grace” in a limited manner as God’s eternal decision to save “his recipients” or “undeserving others” (the elect), all of which “have no claim on him.” God’s “grace” is exclusive, not in the biblical sense of being found in Christ alone, but exclusive with respect to which individuals God has predetermined to save. Note the Calvinist euphemisms. “Free” amounts to “arbitrary” as far as humans are concerned, and “his recipients” refers to the elect. Note also the incoherence in stating that “participating in God” by this deterministic “grace” involves “human activity” further designated as “freedom.” Here is compatibilist euphemism at its best. Humans are “active” in the process because they are being acted upon, not because they are acting in true freedom. “Grace” cannot be biblically defined as God’s fixed, eternal decision to save some out of the mass of undeserving sinners, but is rather God purposing to provide for our salvation in the person and work of Christ. This makes coherent the claim that God has taken an “oriented-to-communion action “in Christ” through the Spirit towards undeserving others” whereas this claim is empty if these “undeserving others” are divided into two classes – those to whom this “communion” is granted “in Christ” and those to whom it is not despite the person and work of Christ. (Italics mine.) God’s grace is obviously not found and made accessible to all sinners “in Christ” but is a decision of God to save certain sinners and leave all others in their sin. This is hardly the testimony of Scripture to God’s grace. (Jn, 1:14-18; Rom. 5:2; Titus 2:11-3:8; See Chapter 14 – The Nature Grace in Scripture).
Why does compatibilism stop at removing impediments to do what God determined for each of us according to “the good pleasure of his will” and reject any human ability of sole authorship or contrary choice? It is because of theological presuppositions about the definition of God’s sovereignty and the sinful nature of man (total inability or total depravity) which in turn dictates the Calvinist understanding of the nature of faith. In short, man is so affected by sin that he cannot but do evil continually nor respond in any way to God. Therefore, God must regenerate a person first, thereby causing them to believe (the “effectual call” or “irresistible grace”). Vanhoozer’s “communicative agency,” “dialogical interaction,” etc. are simply the Calvinist doctrines of “irresistible grace” or the “effectual call” in different philosophical and linguistic garb. Therefore compatibilist language that states that regeneration “permits,” “allows” or “enables” a person to choose Christ is inaccurate and misleading. These words imply an ability to do otherwise while maintaining that it is God who has determined what will be done. This is clearly an incoherent position. The position is incoherent as it is impossible to do anything other than God’s will given the doctrine of the effectual call (irresistible grace). Therefore, the complete Calvinist doctrinal scheme lies in the wings of Vanhoozer’s “communicative” theology. It must be that God has predetermined salvation for certain people and not for others. These are the “recipients” of his favor and the “undeserving others” Vanhoozer refers to. In Calvinist parlance they are the “elect” and this election is unconditional. They are “altogether passive therein.” Their salvation is not based upon anything they are, will or choose to do in the genuine sense that they are the sole author of their act – that the persons themselves actually do the believing or disbelieving. Again, what we end up with is an absolute theological determinism that is incompatible with the biblical testimony to the content of the gospel, the nature of faith, human freedom and moral responsibility.
Arminians do not understand the biblical call to believe to be a synergism of the work of God and the work of man in salvation. One of the most egregious errors in Calvinism is the idea that faith must be considered a meritorious work if it is not part of an unconditional election. This has led to serious distortions regarding the nature and role of faith in salvation. Jeremy Evans observes that,
“…libertarian accounts of freedom require that ultimate responsibility must rest on the agent in some way and that morally this requires that at some point the agent had it within his or her ability to choose otherwise. This account of saving grace means the only contribution the person makes is not of positive personal status, as strands of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism hold. Indeed, the work done in salvation is wrought by God (Eph. 2:8-9) and does not result from the individual’s “pulling himself up by his own bootstraps.”
…a more promising order of results obtains. Rather than saying a new life leads to a saving faith, a saving faith brings about new life. Jesus provides forgiveness of sins for those who believe in Him (Acts 13:38); the one who hears the words of Christ and believes passes from death to life (John 5:24). Notice that the verse does not say “the one who passes from death to life believes” but the “one who believes passes from death to life.” The New Testament is replete with other instances where new life is brought about from faith (John 20:31; 1 Tim. 1:16). Suffice it to say, even holding to monergism does not biblically or logically entail that irresistible grace necessarily follows.”[6]
Indeed, there are good biblical, logical, and moral reasons for rejecting the Calvinist doctrines of the “effectual call” and “irresistible grace.
Back to “The Vanhoozer Essays”
[1] Calvinists interpret Eph. 2: 8, 9 as teaching that faith is “the gift of God” which fits well with their doctrine of predestination. For an exegetical consideration of this passage, an excellent treatment of the Calvinist misunderstanding, faith, and a thoroughly biblical presentation of the nature and role of faith in salvation see chs. 9 and 10 in Robert Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism, (Nashville: Randal House Publications, 2002).
[2] Watson, Institutes, 340, 344.
[3] Forster and Marston, God’s Strategy, 101.
[4] Ibid. 97
[5] Jack Cottrell, “The Classic Arminian View of Election” in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 81.
[6] 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), 261.
The Truth of the Gospel 