Skip to main content

Calvin's Description of Christ as "the Mirror of Election"

On the whole, Berkouwer shows considerable agreement with Calvin. Where there is disagreement, this tends to be minimized through sympathetic interpretation which accentuates their agreement. Whenever disagreement is inevitable, it is always respectful disagreement. Berkouwer’s criticisms of Calvin are never offered without the greatest respect for the great Reformer.
While Berkouwer offers much sympathetic exposition and interpretation of Calvin, it is clearly not his intention ‘to defend every one of Calvin’s utterance concerning the doctrine of election’ (Divine Election, p. 190). In particular, he is critical of the ‘imbalance in the causa-concept which we observe in Calvin’ (p. 181). Even here, however, Berkouwer’s criticism is sympathetic rather than scathing. He refers to an imbalance which requires correction rather than presenting an equally unbalanced and categorical rejection of Calvin’s valid insight into the central importance of the doctrine of election.
Emphasizing the close connection between between election and pastoral concern, Berkouwer commends Calvin's idea of Christ as the ‘mirror of election’. In this idea, Berkouwer sees a way of emphasizing the close relation between election and the certainty of salvation. Berkouwer commends Calvin for his pastoral sensitivity.
Berkouwer is not, however, convinced that Calvin has ‘on the basis of this conception … in all respects drawn the proper conclusions and formed them into a harmonious “system”‘ (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, p. 285). He regards some of Calvin’s exegesis (e.g. Romans 9-11) as questionable. Nevertheless, he maintains that Calvin’s basic insight concerning Christ as the mirror of salvation demands that he be given a much more sympathetic interpretation than he has frequently been given.
By sympathetic criticism and creative reinterpretation, Berkouwer has offered an approach which may well prove to be of great value in contemporary discussions of divine sovereignty and human freedom. In his frequent discussion of Calvin’s insights, Berkouwer has warned us against the danger of dismissing Calvin as ancient history. He has reminded us that, while we may not feel bound to absolute agreement with every detail of Calvin’s theology, we can still learn a great deal from this seminal thinker whose significance goes far beyond his own generation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Berkouwer’s “Holy Scripture” and E J Young’s “Thy Word is Truth”

E J Young argues that one’s doctrine of Scripture is derived from either experience or Scripture, either natural man or supernatural God. Young does speak of the human character of Scripture. It does, however, seem that the supernatural-natural dichotomy underlies his doctrine of Scripture. He turns to the Bible “to discover what it has to say of itself” (p. 40). It is questionable, however, whether his view is not grounded in a notion which tends to set divine and human activity over against each other. Young rejects a mechanical theory (p. 65). It does, however, appear that his own view is really no more than a modification of this view. His interpretation of the working of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture is not directly identifiable with mechanical dictation (pp. 79-80). It does seem, however, that there is a tendency to move in that direction.  * Here are some statements from Young.  - “Without Him (God) there could have been no Bible. Without man th...

A Critique of J D Bettis, "Is Karl Barth a Universalist?"

The question of universalism in Barth’s theology has been raised directly by J D Bettis in his article, “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” (Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1967, pp. 423-436). This article requires to be carefully discussed not only for its significance as an interpretation of Barth’s thought but also because it presents a serious misrepresentation of Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. Bettis writes, “Modern protestant theology has defined three basic answers to the question of the particularity of election: double predestination, Arminianism and universalism” (p. 423). By attempting to fit Berkouwer into “this structure of alternatives” (p. 423), he misrepresents completely Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. According to Bettis, Brunner and Berkouwrer hold that “because Barth fails to accept either Brunner’s Arminianism or Berkouwer's double decree, he must be a universalist” (p. 426). There are two misrepresentations of Berkouwer here. (...

"Praise the Lord!" (Psalm 104:1).

We have come here to praise the Lord. Why do we praise the Lord? "Lord my God, You are very great." God is great in power. His power can impress us, but it will not save us until we are touched by a special power - the power of His love. God is great in holiness. His holiness (Isaiah 6:3) shows us our sin (Isaiah 6:5). It's His love that brings us salvation (Isaiah 6:7). When we see the greatness of His love, we can truly say, "Praise the Lord."