The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, by G. C. Berkouwer. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1956. $4.95.
The Triumph of Grace is a readable book, a veritable triumph of clarity in style and thought. Dutch barbarisms—the misplaced “already,” the excessive use of “over against,” the Germanic adjectival phrases, such as “the in Christ historically realized rejection of the chaos” (p. 249)—are infrequent. The thought proceeds without confusion. One always knows precisely what Berkouwer means. The obscurities are all Barth’s.
The theme of the volume opens with the question as to whether or not Barth has seriously altered his earlier theological views. Has there been a break in his thought, or is it continuous? Has he been won to optimism after a period of war-weary pessimism? Has he become more orthodox?
Through several chapters Berkouwer argues that while there have been variations in emphasis, and even one or two retractions of unfortunate phraseology, the triumph of God’s grace is the single and continuous motif.
With chapter eight Berkouwer’s criticism begins. As his exposition is marked with great care, so too his criticism is scrupulously honest and restrained. Barth’s paradoxical and even unintelligible language tempts an author to see contradictions where none may be. Or, possibly the contradictions are really there. But Berkouwer never presses minor difficulties. There are, however, some major questions.
With full acknowledgment of the fact that Barth espouses many biblical themes and is usually a more sober judge of the same than others of the neo-orthodox school, Berkouwer clearly states the general principle that an emphasis on grace does not ipso facto insure a fully Scriptural theology. Marcionism, Romanism, and antinomianism have also spoken of grace. Therefore, with respect to Barth one must ask: What sort of triumph does he proclaim? What is the enemy over which the triumph occurs? What are the means of the triumph? Four chapters are used to answer these questions.
If Barth says that grace triumphs over sin, one must note that for Barth sin is not defined in terms of divine law. Sin is pride or autonomy; it is absurd and inexplicable; it is the “No” which is the reverse side of God’s “Yes.” Sin is a mystery, not because we cannot explain it, but because it is “ontologically impossible.” Sin in the nature of the case cannot be; man cannot be godless; sin is a violation of the inviolable grace of God. When this view is combined with the theme of triumph, a triumph already complete, Berkouwer naturally asks whether Barth has not made the preaching of the Gospel useless and the struggle against sin empty.
Then too, the completeness of the triumph, in the emphatic terms Barth uses, leads to universalism. Yet Barth rejects universalism. At the same time he asserts that every man is both elect and reprobate. But if every man is both, and if all synergism is radically denied, how can universalism be logically avoided? Barth objects to the Remonstrants, who made redemption universal but limited grace’s effectiveness by a human cooperation. Yet, concludes Berkouwer, Barth has adopted a position that differs from the Remonstrants more in words than in thought. Barth, says Berkouwer, stands at the crossroads: either he should accept universalism and the uselessness of the Gospel, or he should reconsider his position on sin and election.
An appendix of 10 pages is added on the “Problem of Interpretation.” It is in effect a criticism of Professor Cornelius Van Til. In the words of Balthasar, Van Til’s interpretation of Barth is “completely grotesque.” Berkouwer adds that Van Til neglects “an elementary requirement of scholarship” with his “unwarranted interpretation.” And worse, Van Til expounds orthodoxy in such a way that “I cannot recognize the features of the real Reformed orthodoxy.” This reviewer shares Berkouwer’s evaluation of Van Til’s critical abilities, but on the points under discussion he cannot see that Van Til’s departures from the Reformed faith are quite so serious as Berkouwer seems to believe.
Gordon H. Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment