Skip to main content

Berkouwer, Calvin and Calvinism

Berkouwer has close affinities with 'the old Dutch biblical piety, not seized by dogmatic insights but steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to the Scriptures' (Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, p.21).
This 'old Dutch biblical piety' is similar to Berkouwer's insistence that election is not a special gnosis for the theological elite. It is a confession of faith, arising from the hearts of those who have come to know the grace of God (Divine Election, p. 216).
Bringing this perspective to his discussion of Calvin and the Reformed tradition, Berkouwer is concerned to direct our attention to the warm biblical piety of Calvin himself rather than the more speculative developments of later Calvinism.
While he does not accept uncritically everything that Calvin says, Berkouwer has greater respect for Calvin himself than he has for some of Calvin's more speculative followers. While he has suggested that Calvin has not always avoided the influence of scholasticism, Berkouwer sees, in Calvin's work, a warm biblical piety, which is actively and earnestly involved in seeking 'true and solid wisdom ... the knowledge of God and ourselves' (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book One, Chapter I, Section 1).
In his book, Objectiviteit en Existentialitet (Objectivity and Existentaility), S Meijers points out that there is, in Berkouwer's theology, 'a consistent apologetic intention ... directed at scholasticism' (p.448 - quoted by Meijers in his English summary). (In personal correspondence (Spring 1979), Meijers informed me that Berkouwer acknowledged the validity of this observation).
The term 'scholasticism' is used here to describe a theological tendency rather than a precisely identifiable theological position. In his article on 'G C Berkouwer' in Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology (edited by P E Hughes), L B Smedes describes scholasticism and Berkouwer's response to it.
He describes scholasticism as a tendency ' to do theology by deducing propositions from objective truths given by revelation. The difference between theological truths and ... mathematical truths lay in their source: the former were derived from divine revelation and the latter from natural reason. Faith entered, only at the beginning of the enterprise, as an assent to the truthfulness of the statements. Thus, theology (does) not do all its work guided, limited, and determined constantly by the obedience of faith' (p.94).
Describing Berkouwer's theological method, Smedes points out that he insists that 'theology each step of the way, be in dynamic and determinative relationship to faith ... that theology be shaped and formed by the nature of the thing it talks about - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel comes to man as an urgent summons and merciful invitation ... not ... as a matter-of-fact, disclosure of a set of objective, abstract truths ... The truth of the Gospel ... is known and understood only within the total context of both revelation and the obedience of faith' (pp.94-95).
Berkouwer seeks constantly to break the stranglehold of scholasticism on Reformed theology. He emphasizes that, for theology to be truly Reformed, it must proceed on the basis of a living faith in the living God.

Popular posts from this blog

God continues to carry forward His great purpose of salvation.

Genesis 16:1-16
We move from salvation and the assurance of salvation to Satan and the activity of Satan. Sarai came with temptation - "Why don't you sleep with my slave? Maybe I can build a family through her." Abram gave in to temptation -"Abram agreed with Sarai (Genesis 16:2). The evil influence of Sarai continued: "Sarai mistreated Hagar so much that she ran away" (Genesis 16:6). When we read of Satan and his activity, we must not imagine, for a moment, that Satan wins the victory over the Lord and His purpose of salvation. This becomes clear as the story develops. The Lord's purpose will not be thwarted by the activity of Satan. The "Almighty Lord" will be victorious. This chapter ends with the birth of Ishmael. It is not a high- point in the purpose of God. It is a sign that Satan is trying to overthrow God and His gracious purpose. This leads to a 13-year gap in God's speaking to Abraham (Genesis 16:16-17:1), but that…

Lord, help us to love You ...

Lord, help us to love You – and help us to love one another. How can we say that we love You if we are not learning to love one another? How can we learn to love one another if we are not opening our hearts to the greatest love of all – Your love for us. Fill us with Your love. Change us by Your love. May our whole life shine with the glory of Your love.

Isaac and Jesus

Genesis 22:1-24
Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac - "You did not refuse to give Me your son, your only son" (Genesis 22:12). God did give His only Son for us - "God did not spare His only Son but handed Him over to death for us all" (Romans 8:32). While there may be comparisons made between the sacrifice of Isaac and the sacrifice of Jesus, we must emphasize the great difference - the sacrifice of Isaac did not happen, the sacrifice of Jesus did. For Isaac, there was a way out. For Jesus, there was no other way. Abraham's faith was proved genuine without the sacrifice of Isaac. Our faith only becomes a reality through the sacrifice of Christ (Galatians 2:20-21; Galatians 3:13-14).