Skip to main content

Some Theological Connections between G. C. Berkouwer and Herman N. Ridderbos

The idea of witness in connection with the New Testament witness to Christ.
Drawing upon the work of Herman N. Ridderbos, Berkouwer writes, “it is the product of a perception that was not infinite. It is subject to human limitations, its record does not exceed the limits of human memory” (Holy Scripture, p. 162, n. 75).
He does, however, emphasize that there is a “deep dimension of the human witness”: “This witness does not well up from the human heart but from the witness of God, in which it finds its foundation and empowering as a human witness” (p. 165).
This conception of “Scripture” as “human witness empowered by the Spirit” (p. 167) transcends the “wholly divine or wholly human” dilemma (p. 24). It emphasizes that “the Word of God does not draw us away from the human but involves us with the human” (p. 167).
* Understanding the witness of the Gospels to Jesus Christ
Drawing upon the work of Herman N. Ridderbos, Berkouwer rejects “an absolute contrast between kerygma and that which happened” (p. 247).
Berkouwer points out that the Gospel writers did not use a form of historiography which follows the rules of modern historical criticism: “In its historiography, Scripture follows its own direction and purpose” - the sacred story is religious history which does not offer “that kind of accuracy which we often desire” (pp. 243-244).
In making this point, he insists that we must not draw a radical contrast between “the biblical picture of the Christ” and “the historical Jesus” (p. 247).
Opposing a false objectivism, he writes, “If absolute preciseness and exactness is seen as the ideal, excluding all interpretive subjectivity, in order to render ‘facts’ as objectively as possible, we must conclude that the gospels do not coincide with this ideal and therefore are not reliable … Even if we are aware of the problem posed by the connection between event and interpretation, we may not withdraw into the postulate of an historiography that separates story from interpretation for the sake of objectivity” (pp. 248-249).
Opposing an a-historical interpretation of the Gospels he insists that the recognition of “a freedom in composing and expressing the mystery of Christ” must not be set over against the observation that”(w)hat happened is decisive for all evangelists” (p. 252).
By adopting this position neither Berkouwer nor Ridderbos give any encouragement to any suggestion that the kerygmatic purpose of the Gospels should ever be separated from their intention to speak “about Jesus as he was when he walked and dwelt among us” (Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture and its Authority, (1978), p. 70, emphasis original).
Understanding the connection between election and Christ
In A Half Century of Theology, Berkouwer draws upon the work of Ridderbos who “sees election connected not with a definite number of people, but with Christ” (p. 102) and Dijk who holds that “it is better ‘not to speak of another decree that lies behind the gracious choice that is in Christ” lest we cut election loose from Jesus Christ” (emphasis Berkouwer’s).
With this emphasis on the centrality of Christ, Berkouwer seeks to maintain the absolute necessity of divine grace: “there can never be a question of too strongly accenting the grace of God. He insists, however, that this absolute emphasis should be properly emphasized: “the question is, how shall we lay the proper emphases and how can we most purely praise this grace.”Thus, Berkouwer guards against the wrong emphasis: “It is never the full accent but the wrong accent that obscures the gospel of God’s grace” (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, p. 349, emphasis original).
Holy Scripture as Canon (Holy Scripture, Chapter Three, pp. 67-104)
Here, Berkouwer cites favourably the view of Ridderbos that “in Christ are based both salvation and its trustworthy communication,  and … that ‘here lies to the present day the principium canonicitatis’” (p. 86; citing Ridderbos, The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, (1963), p. 47.
Berkouwer observes that Ridderbos does not intend to put forward a criterion by which a “canon-in-the-canon” might be established but rather to “set forth relationships which make impossible any attempt to abstract the canon from Christ” (p. 87).

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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…

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).