Thursday, September 25, 2003
Reading Peter Leithart's recent comments on the subject of Barth and Berkhouwer's doctrines of election, I would like to add a couple of my own thoughts.
Leithart talks about the doctrine of the decree focusing upon the content rather than the fact of election. This is one of the helpful emphases of Berkhouwer. The question that I would like to raise is that of how election is to be known. That election is revealed in Scripture is clear. However, we must ask how the truth of election is to be known. I would contend that election can only be known truly by an involved faith and cannot be truly know by detached reason.
As N.T. Wright points out, love is the supreme manifestation of knowledge. The one who loves is inseparably involved with the one loved, but is distinct from the one loved. In a 'relational epistemology' the object to be known cannot be truly known in any detached way. Consequently, the sharp distinctions between objective and subjective should be abandoned.
Election is revelation that is personal in character and it cannot be understood outside of a personal relationship. As Calvin points out, Christ is the mirror of our own election (Institutes III.xxiv.5). The message of election is a message delivered to the faithful people of God. As the faithful people of God believe this doctrine they find themselves drawn up into it. We cannot separate between the knowledge of election and the knowledge of our own election.
Many theologians have failed to understand the intent of the Biblical teaching on election. The purpose of the teaching is to encourage believers in their faith and assure them of the great blessings which are theirs in Christ, not to give theologians a deterministic construct in terms of which they can systematize their theology. If the doctrine of election is detached from the moorings of covenant and assurance then it will function contrary to its original intent. It becomes a dark shadow over the gospel, rather than a message of joy.
Election is to be expressed in doxology, not abstract theology. Election is not revealed as some isolated truth to be explored outside the context of the faith to which it is revealed. If election is removed from this context it will become grossly distorted.
We should speak about election in the same way as we speak about a person loving us, because this is how it is revealed. We cannot truly speak about it in a detached fashion. Where we stand in relation to that person becomes highly significant. The Bible does not present us with much (anything?) about election as an abstract decree. As a result we should not treat it as such. When election is presented it is our election which is presented. It is, furthermore, always presented in the light of a relationship with God in Christ. Theologians have done the church a tremendous disservice by making election merely an article of abstract theology, rather than a joyful confession.
Read Herman Ridderbos' Paul: An Outline of His Theology (section 57) for a helpful treatment of this subject, one substantially in agreement with the position of Berkhouwer. Ridderbos gives us a doctrine of election firmly rooted in Christ, election that cannot be known apart from Him.
When approaching the doctrine of election, therefore, we approach a doctrine to be understood in Christ alone. How we stand in relation to Him is crucially important. To talk about our election without making any reference to Christ is to talk nonsense.
Read Herman Ridderbos' Paul: An Outline of His Theology (section 57) for a helpful treatment of this subject, one substantially in agreement with the position of Berkhouwer. Ridderbos gives us a doctrine of election firmly rooted in Christ, election that cannot be known apart from Him.
When approaching the doctrine of election, therefore, we approach a doctrine to be understood in Christ alone. How we stand in relation to Him is crucially important. To talk about our election without making any reference to Christ is to talk nonsense.