I just meant your comment took on new meaning when I knew it was coming from the most venerable, Darren (from Scotland) :-). When I responded to you, initially, I didn’t realize I “knew” you; I just thought you were “some” Darren from cyberspace somewhere. ;-)

Darren, I guess on your commendable point, it depends on who’s perspective. But I agree with you.

What I’m curious about is the final bit of what you quoted: “Christology for Calvin is not the source of the doctrine of election; rather it is brought into play as an example of how his own argument from Scripture about election accords with Christ’s teaching on the matter. Calvin’s Christology is not principial for his doctrine of election.”

Contextually, does Gibson praise this perspective or otherwise lift it up as preferable to Barth’s ‘radical christocentrism?’ It seems to me — at least as a preliminary judgment, having not seen the full context of the argument — that pointing to Scripture instead of Christology as source and norm of one’s doctrine of election is not to be commended.

But perhaps Gibson would say that Christ’s person is certainly in there somewhere — it’s only logically subordinated to Scripture on this dogmatic point (i.e., not everything we say needs to be christocentric). The question between Calvin and Barth, then, would be over the logical relationship between election and Christ (as well as Scripture’s role in mediating that relationship, or disclosing that relationship, or what have you).

Thanks, I hadn’t heard of this book before, but now it’s a must read!

I think, from what you’ve said, Gibson may be right (in general) — relative to the two “Reformers.” Calvin’s conception of the ‘Word’ is nowhere near as nuanced as Barth’s. Related to that, the two “Reformers” have distinct understandings of “Revelation” (at least in their respective “precision”). But, I would also want to say that Calvin is obviously present within Barth’s reification. Calvin is pre-modern, Barth modern; the point of over-lap is certainly christology, as Gibson notes. But, I think it is safe to say, that w/o Calvin there would be no Barth.

As I reflect further, from what I hear from Gibson (through your voice), I don’t hear anything that original. Muller notes the same kind of stuff on Calvin as he highlights the locus method (so Gibson’s ‘extensive’) that Calvin supposedly operated from (even though his writings reflect a ‘confessional’ method). To me it sounds as if Gibson is just appropriating Muller’s thinking, and applying it as the cipher to his own work. If Gibson’s work is so dependent, then I suppose the legitimacy of his reading (esp. in re. Calvin) stands or falls on the success of Muller’s attempt to make Calvin a Calvinist (which I don’t think Muller does).

Anyway, I’ll be picking this book up, soon. Thanks.