The Theology of G C Berkouwer

Read Through The Bible in 2012

2012-01-18T23:47:00.000Z

Read Through The Bible In A Year and one year bible - two different sets of notes: I hope you will join me on this journey through God’s Word.

Pride and Faith in Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics" (The believer's experience of salvation)

2011-12-28T16:54:00.000Z

Central to Berkouwer’s exposition of Christian experience are three books which might be called a kind of trilogy - Faith and Justification, Faith and Sanctification, and Faith and Perseverance.
These titles emphasize the importance of faith in the theology of Berkouwer. From beginning to end, the Christian life is a life of faith. In each of these books, Berkouwer stresses that true faith in Jesus Christ is in direct contrast to the sinful pride of man by which he glories in himself rather than in the Lord.
Commenting on the meaning of justification by faith, Berkouwer writes, ‘Everything is really said in an unobtrusive phrase, in Christ.’ On the subject of Faith and Justification, he continues, 'faith... is not added as a second, independent ingredient which makes its own contribution to justification in Christ... faith does nothing but accept, or come to rest in the sovereignty of His benefit ... we are not acceptable to God because of the worthiness of our faith. Grace is exclusively and totally God’s.
Citing John Calvin, Berkouwer describes the nature of faith thus: ‘faith looks away from itself to Christ’. With this understanding of faith, Berkouwer offers a helpful analysis of the doctrine of sola fide (by faith alone) and sola gratia (by grace alone): ‘Solo fide and sola gratia ... mean the same thing.’ In these doctrines, by faith alone and by grace alone, God is glorified and man is humbled. On the final page of Faith and Justification, Berkouwer issues a warning against man’s sinful pride. It is a warning which is grounded in the gospel doctrines of salvation: by faith alone
and by grace alone ‘let the sound of sola fide-sola gratia ring in the life of the Church. Let it be a warning against the pride of the treacherous heart.’9
These doctrines of salvation - by faith alone and by grace alone - also lie at the heart of Berkouwer’s exposition of Faith and Sanctification. He stresses that ‘in the New Testament all admonition is grounded in and proceeds from the mercy of God’. When the mercy of God is magnified, the pride of man is brought low - ‘the Scriptures preach humility: the only suitable response to the mercy of God.’ How is man able to walk in the way of humility? It is the work of the Holy Spirit: ‘he spirit alone could perform the miracle of making man walk on the road of sanctity without a sense of his own worth.’ How long is man to walk in the way of humility? The believers life-long experience is to be a walk in humility; ‘This humility is not to be sloughed off as believers advance to new levels but to be preserved as long as grace communicates itself.’ This call to humility brings with it a strong warning against human pride: 'if anything is clear in the message of Scripture, it is that in sanctification there is never, under any circumstances, any room for self-pride or self-praise.'10
This emphasis on humility also comes out strongly in Berkouwer’s volume on Sin, where he maintains that ‘(i)n the mystery of the Spirit there is no greater gift than this gift of humility’.
Concerning the importance of humility, he writes, ‘it is identified with the gift of conversion itself since “(o)nly those who are humble can escape the judgment of which the Gospel speaks: 'He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts' (Luke 1:51)’. Berkouwer speaks of humility in connection with ‘the mystery of the Spirit’ since it is only through the power of the Holy Spirit that sinful man can be led into and kept on the way of humility. Concerning this ministry of the Holy Spirit, Berkouwer writes, ‘In reproving and rebuking, in comforting and counselling, the Holy Spirit maintains a Christian in humility.’11 If we are not to walk in the way of sinful pride, we must learn to walk in the way of humble faith. In this, the Holy Spirit is our Teacher.
Berkouwer’s strong emphasis on the grace of God, with its warning against man’s sinful pride, is maintained in the third part of the trilogy, Faith and Perseverance. Here, he stresses that we are not concerned with ‘perseverance ... by one’s own power’. Rather, we must direct attention to ‘the persevering grace and power of God... the faithfulness of God’. In maintaining this emphasis on divine grace, Berkouwer insists that’(t)he grace of God is never the cause for glorying in one’s
own power’ and that ‘(p)erseverance is always opposed to false self-confidence.’ There is, in Berkouwer’s trilogy on the Christian life, an echo of Calvin’s Institution which never tire of repeating the warning against every attempt at gaining assurance apart from Christ and His cross.12
The fact that Berkouwer has written this trilogy on justification, sanctification and perseverance should not lead us to suppose that he is concerned only with personal faith and has nothing to say about the corporate aspects of Christian faith. In his book, The Church, he gives attention to the relationship between the individual believer and the fellowship of God’s people. Berkouwer stresses that in ‘God’s saving reconciling action (t)he individual does not disappear’. Instead, ‘he
is liberated from individualization and solitariness in order to have a place in this new fellowship.’ In the purpose of God, both the individual believer and the fellowship of the Lord’s people have their important place: 'Every individual need receives his undivided attention; yet, at the same time, ways are opened by which the individual receives a place in a human fellowship, ending all individualism.'13
In his understanding of the relationship between the believer and the church, there is a warning against both individualistic pride and ecclesiastical pride. The individual believer dares not stand apart from the church because it is not all that it should be.
The church dares not conceive of itself as an impersonal organizational or institution which can nun roughshod over its individual members.
Consideration of the believer’s place within the church leads us on to The Sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Here, we are called away from our sinful pride. Concerning baptism, Berkouwer writes, ‘The fundamental fact about baptism will always be its involvement with the death of Christ.’ Developing this idea further in connection with the meaning of baptism, Berkouwer makes an important point: The prevenient aspect of the grace of God lies not in the temporal priority of the acts of God in baptism in comparison with the conscious acceptance of the divine promise, but in the temporal priority of the cross of Christ with respect to the baptized person, whether child or adult.
A particular form of baptism, whether believers baptism or infant baptism, must not become such a source of doctrinal or denominational pride that we lose contact with the only legitimate boastings: ‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Gal. 6:14).
In his exposition of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, Berkouwer comments helpfully on the phrase ‘worthy partakers’.
'They are those who confess their sins in self-abhorrence, humiliation, faith in God’s promises, and gratefulness of heart. This is the ‘worthiness’ that belongs to the Lord’s Supper. It is not at all meritorious in nature, but is in complete harmony with what is signified and sealed in the Lord’s Supper. It is a worthiness that coincides with a confession of ‘unworthiness’ and with trust in the salvation of God.'14
This insightful explanation of what it means to worthily partake of the Lord’s Supper presents a holy and yet loving rebuke to man’s spiritual pride, whatever form it may take. There is a rebuke for those who, while speaking of their own unworthiness, proudly refuse to receive - by faith - the salvation which God, in love, offers to them in Christ. There is a rebuke also for those who take the love of God for granted, coming to the Lord’s Table as a matter of mere religious ritual.
The celebration of the Lord’s Supper directs our attention toward the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ - ‘For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (1 Cor. 11:26). This is an oft-repeated reminder to us that the life of faith is a life that is directed toward the future. In his book, The Return of Christ, Berkouwer emphasizes that we must approach the future with a living faith and not with proud complacency.
Challenging the teaching which moves directly from the love of God to the notion that all will be saved, he writes: ‘it is extremely dangerous to think and talk about “the love of God” and what follows from it outside of the gospel.’ The way of living faith is quite different from a proud complacency which simply assumes that all will be saved. Here, Berkouwer refers to ‘the question addressed to Jesus... “Lord, will those who are saved be few?”’ He points out that ‘Jesus’ answer seems so noncommittal, so evasive’. Concerning Jesus’ answer: ‘Strive to enter by the narrow door (Luke 13:23f.)’, Berkouwer comments, ‘this evasiveness is only apparent’, adding this insightful remark: 'This is the answer to this question ... this question has been answered, once for all time.'15
In all our theological study, there is one thing we must never forget. Whenever we bring our questions to God, he gives his answers, but they are not answers which bolster our proud complacency. They are answers which call us to faith, a living faith, a growing faith, a faith which brings glory to God.

-----
9 Faith and Justification, (Grand Rapids, 1954), 43, 175, 44, 201.
10 Faith and Sanctification, (Grand Rapids, 1952), 25, 125, 78, 117.
11 Sin, (Grand Rapids, 1871), 228-9.
12 Faith and Perseverance, (Grand Rapids, 1958), 228-9.
13 The Church, (Grand Rapids, 1976), 77.
14 The Sacraments, (Grand Rapids, 1969), 118, 176, 256-7.

Pride and Faith in Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics" (God's provision of salvation)

2011-12-28T16:53:00.000Z

The Bible speaks of sin. It also speaks of salvation. The gospel is directed toward ‘the restoration of the image of God’. In this connection, Berkouwer cites Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10 which speak of ‘the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness’, ‘the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator’. Concerning the relationship between creation and salvation, Berkouwer writes, 'the restoration and renewal of the image will throw light upon the meaning and content of the original creation of man in the image of God.'3
When we consider man’s creation in the light of his salvation, we find ourselves underlining the contrast between pride and faith. In his book, Divine Election, Berkouwer stresses that the Bible story is a ‘history of salvation (which) does away with any personal glory’. This history of salvation reaches its high point in Jesus Christ. Here, we have the low point for human pride, since ‘in Christ’ we have ‘the exclusion of all human merit’. This is the point which Paul makes in 1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor. 10:17 - ‘Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord’. We are to ‘glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh’ (Phil. 3:3). The gospel presents us with a challenge. We are to turn from our sinful pride and put our faith in Christ. Human pride does not surrender easily to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The gospel’s call for faith can be resisted.
Such resistance to Christ has drastic effects:
The gospel does not leave unchanged the person who does not listen and remains disobedient... unbelief can lead only to progressive hardening of the heart.There is no way out of the bondage of sinful human pride, other than the way of faith in Jesus Christ. Berkouwer makes this point well:
Hardening can never be broken by man in his own power. There is no other therapy that can bring about a change except the divine healing in Christ and the superior power of the Spirit.4
Central to Berkouwer’s exposition of salvation are his books, The Person of Christ and The Work of Christ. In both of these books, Berkouwer draws the contrast between pride and faith. In The Person of Christ, commenting on Mt. 16:16-17 (Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and Jesus’ reply: ‘…flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven’), he writes, 'the confession of the church touching Jesus Christ can never be a knowledge such that, with it, the church can elevate itself above the world. It is precisely within the church that people will have to remind themselves that this knowledge is a gift and a miracle which did not arise out of flesh and blood.5
In The Work of Christ, discussing the theme - reconciliation, Berkouwer writes, 'it is the marvel of the work of the Holy Spirit that those who really respond to the proclamation of reconciliation claim no merit whatsoever for that response, but rather find the essence of their joy in God, who reconciled us unto himself.'6
The change which takes place when we trust Jesus Christ is not only a change in our view of Christ. Through Christ, we look differently at both God’s creation and our own circumstances. In his books, General Revelation and The Providence of God, Berkouwer explores the Christian’s view of creation and circumstances. Since our view of creation and circumstances is bound up with our faith in Christ, there can be no room for any self-centred pride. Emphasizing that our
experience of salvation changes our view of creation, Berkouwer writes, 'man in and by the salvation of God is delivered from the tenacity of the egocentric and commences to sing of the glory of God. It is this salvation that opens doors and windows toward God’s handiwork.'7
In his exposition of The Providence of God, Berkouwer stresses that we are not concerned here with any mere human optimism in which man himself can take pride - 'in the doctrine of Providence we have a specific Christian confession exclusively possible through faith in Jesus Christ. This faith is no general, vague notion of Providence. It has a
concrete focus: ‘If God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, butdelivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?’ (Rom.
8:31, 32).
Citing an earlier Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, Herman Bavinck, Berkouwer emphasizes the centrality of the cross in the doctrine of providence - ‘In the cross’, writes Bavinck, ‘the Christian has seen the special Providence of God. He has, in forgiving and regenerating grace, experienced Providence in his heart. From this new, positive experience in his own life, he looks out over his entire existence and over the whole world, and sees there the leading of God’s fatherly hand.’8
-----
3 Man: The Image of God, (Grand Rapids, 1962), 103, 21, 27, 122, 131-2, 135, 143, 144, 87-9.
4 Divine Election, (Grand Rapids, 1960), 72, 143, 149, 249-50, 252.
5 The Person of Christ, (Grand Rapids, 1954), 14.
6 The Work of Christ, (Grand Rapids, 1965), 294.
7 General Revelation, (Grand Rapids, 1955), 131.
8 The Providence of God, (Grand Rapids, 1952), 45, 47, 41.

"Pride and Faith" in Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics" (Man's Need of Salvation)

2011-12-28T16:52:00.000Z

The story of man begins with God the Creator. Man has been ‘created ... in the image of God’ (Gn. 1:27). Berkouwer discusses the doctrine of man in his book, Man: The Image of God. The story of man is not only a story of creation in God’s image. It is also the story of man’s fall into sin. At the heart of man’s fall, there is the sin of pride. This is highlighted in the words of ‘the serpent’ in Gen. 3:5 - ‘For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil’. Man’s fall into sin leads to a ‘perversion’ of his relationship with God. His whole life is shaped by ‘a perverted self-knowledge... which arise(s) from pride’. Alluding to the picture of the Pharisees presented in the Gospels and the description
of the Jew given by Paul in his Letter to the Romans, Berkouwer offers a penetrating analysis of man’s sinful pride: 'We can hardly say that the Pharisees had an accurate ‘knowledge’ of man when they pointed to the sins (the real sins) of publicans and sinners. This judgment, which separated knowledge of man from self-knowledge, was as nothing in God’s eyes. The Jew did not have a better understandingbecause he was able to judge the heathen. In the sphere of abstract morality this could possibly be said, but this is not Biblical morality - O man, who judgest others!' Berkouwer stresses that the biblical doctrine of sin leaves no room for self-centred pride. He
emphasizes that ‘(e)vil in man is radical, so much so that it cannot be overcome by human power’. Maintaining that man does ‘not have the power to begin by himself any change in spiritual things’, Berkouwer stresses that ‘there is no limit or boundary within human nature beyond which we can find some last human reserve untouched by sin. He points out that, in ‘(t)he Gospels’, “being a sinner” means ‘being lost’ - ‘There is no way for man to escape the condition of being lost ... The lost can only be sought and found’. The biblical teaching concerning being lost serves to enhance its teaching concerning the greatness of God’s salvation. Emphasizing that ‘the jubilation of salvation corresponds to this very real condition of lostness’, Berkouwer points out that, in Scripture, ‘there is never any mention of a relativizing of sin’ since ‘(a)ny such relativizing of sin would also automatically relativize the unspeakably wonderful nature of salvation’.

Pride and Faith in Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics" (introduction)

2011-12-28T16:51:00.000Z

‘The great theologians from Paul and Augustine to G. C. Berkouwer and Karl Barth ... have been able to explain what the faith does not mean as well as what it means.’1 This is a short study in the writings of one of those great theologians named here by D. G. Bloesch. G. C. Berkouwer, Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam has been described as one of ‘the best theological writers of our day’, ‘one of the genuinely significant leaders of Christian thought in our day’. His Studies in Dogmatics, running, in English translation to thirteen volumes, has been described as ‘one of the most ambitious undertakings in contemporary theology’. Berkouwer has been commended for his ‘complete familiarity with all the currents in contemporary theology’. Concerning Berkouwer, it has been said that ‘the theological student who neglects him is not wise’.2
In this study, we will explore the meaning of faith by considering both what faith is and what it is not. This will be done by tracing the contrasting themes of pride and faith in Berkouwer’s Studies in Dogmatics. To assist us in structuring our thinking about pride and faith, we will consider these themes under three major headings: man’s need of salvation; God’s provision of salvation; the believer’s experience of salvation.
-----
1 D. G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty, (Grand Rapids, 1971), 61.
2 These words of commendation from E. T. Ramsdell and Dr. Dale Moody are found on the rear dust cover of Berkouwer’s Studies in Dogmatics.

Links to excerpts from Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics"

2011-12-28T16:48:00.000Z

Here are some links to excerpts from Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics.

Sin
Faith and Perseverance
The Person of Christ
The Work of Christ
Divine Election
Faith and Sanctification
Faith and Justification
The Return of Christ
Man: The Image of God
The Church

-----

Logos Software have made his "Studies in Dogmatics" available in electronic form. Here's the link to this - http://www.logos.com/products/details/2548

Berkouwer on Social Concern and Sanctification

2011-12-28T16:44:00.000Z

Berkouwer approaches social concern from a Biblical and Reformed perspective. In Ephesians 2:8-10, the emphases ‘by grace’ and ‘through faith’ lead directly on to the emphasis ‘for good works’. Berkouwer underscores this connection between ‘Sola Fide and Sanctification’ (Chapter II, pp. 17-44). He emphasizes that the true nature of good works cannot be understood apart from Christ who is our ’sanctification’ (1 Corinthians 1:30) (p. 21). Sanctification is not ‘the humanly operated successor to the divinely worked justification (p. 78). ‘Genuine sanctification’ has a ‘continued orientation toward justification’ (p. 78). Berkouwer emphasizes the ‘by grace … through faith’ context in which the ‘for good works’ character of sanctification expresses itself. He draws attention to the nature of the Spirit’s work in sanctification: ‘The Spirit alone could perform the miracle of making man walk on the road of sanctity without a sense of his own worth’ (p. 78). The life of sanctification has a gracious character which Berkouwer observes in the parable of the unprofitable servants (p. 41) and a social context which he sees in the parable of the good Samaritan (A Half Century of Theology, p. 191). A Reformed theology, grounded in the ‘Scripture alone’ principle, seeks to rightly represent the purpose of Scripture – ‘to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus … that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:15, 17). Berkouwer, in his discussion entitled ‘The Imitation of Christ’ (Chapter VII, pp. 135-160), emphasizes both the gracious character and the social context of the Biblical teaching concerning sanctification.

Berkouwer's Theology of Social Concern

2011-12-21T00:38:00.000Z

Berkouwer refuses to separate personal faith and social concern. He provides a perspective through which Christian theology can avoid the twin dangers of (a) a preoccupation with social concern which implicitly conceives of personal faith as a flight into illusion; and (b) a preoccupation with individualistic and 'other-worldly' religion which fails to provide any significant expression of social concern. In his introduction to the symposium, At the Edge of Hope, Christian Laity in Paradox, H Butt insists that 'transcendent hope ... immanent hope ... must cohere ... in order to intersect and overcome despair - the loss of expectation for God's eternal Kingdom and expectation for the improvement of this world ... transcendent expectation and ... immanent expectation form one complete Christian hope. The first says, turn to God because the human prospect is so bleak; the second says, the human prospect can be changed because of God' (pp.6-7). Butt continues, 'Everything is hopeless but God. Everything is hopeful because of God ... we and our societies are nothing compared with God ... we and our world are beloved of God' (pp.8-9).
Like Butt, Berkouwer discusses social concern in relation to hope. He discusses the significance of 'the earthly horizon' in relation to 'the outlook on the future, the relationship between our actual todays and our expected tomorrows, between our narrow horizons and the hope that leaps over them into the promised future' (A Half Century of Theology, p.179). He insists that a proper understanding of the theology of social concern demands a proper understanding of Christian hope. He distinguishes between a caricature of Christian hope and a profile of Christian hope - 'Escape into the future is not eschatology, but eschaton fever ... To become 'this-worldly' is not to empty the future of its radical character of 'beyond this world'. What it does do is close the door to flight into the 'beyond'. It tells us that such a flight is a caricature, not a profile of Christian hope. The summons to 'this-worldly' living is a response ... to "God's redeeming love for the world in all its dimensions"' (p. 181, 214).
In his analysis of transcendent and immanent hope, Butt rejects the competition-motif - 'Conservatuve 'otherworldly' hope and liberal 'this worldly ' hope are dangled like competing pearls of great price before the laity today. What tragedy, when they really form a single unified reality' (At the Edge of Hope, p.7). Like Butt, Berkouwer rejects the competition-motif. Speaking of 'the unfortunate dilemma - horizontalism or verticalism?', he writes, 'When we create false dilemmas like this we lose our vision of the many dimensions of reality' (A Half Century of Theology, 189-190).
The reality which guides Berkouwer's theology of social concern is the reality of God's salvation. When the question of social concern is set in this context, it becomes clear that '(i)t is a question that goes beyond typical differences between optimists and pessimists'. It zeroes in on the significance for the present of the salvation that has appeared and is confessed and preached by the church of Christ' (p.181).
When the question of social concern is related to God's salvation, it may be formulated thus: 'Does the Christian faith call us away from the world or does it push us into it?' (p. 189). Berkouwer points out that '(i)n the total context of Christian faith almost no one contends for total indifference to the world. The gospel testimony is too strong to allow complete unconcern. The image of him who was ever ready to stop, to see and care for the blind, the deaf, the sinner and publican, the poor and sick, the sheep without a shepherd, to stop and be moved to compassion - the image of such a concerned One is too sharp to excuse indifference' (p. 190).
Taking into account both our Lord's concern for people and His proclamation of God's Word, Berkouwer emphasizes that 'a scale of priorities is contrary to the gospel' (p. 191).
This conviction is rooted in the understanding of the Gospel, found in his book, Divine Election. (i) In its proclamation of divine salvation, the Gospel never minimizes the significance of human activity: 'The divine act makes room, leaves open the possibility for man's act. That possibility is not absorbed or destroyed by divine superiority, but created, called forth, by it ... There is a superiority which is not that of mechanical causality or of a coercion that obstructs man's activity; it is the personal superiority of love and grace, which in man's experience is making room for him to act by not destroying his freedom' (pp.46, 49).
(ii) In its proclamation of eternal salvation, the Gospel never minimizes the significance of the temporal sphere - 'it is necessary to understand ... how the words "time" and "eternity" function in the gospel ... They are not placed in a context in which they make us dizzy in the face of an unapproachable "eternity"' (p.150).
(iii) In its proclamation of gracious salvation, the Gospel never minimizes the significance of the Church's responsibility to turn towards the world in service.
Regarding the antithesis between God's believing people and the unbelieving world, he writes,
'The constant warning of the Word of God is not that we must speak no more of the reality of the antithesis, but that the antithesis must be correctly understood as being legitimate only by virtue of the grace of election ... in the antithesis we are confronted with a truly unique contrast. This uniqueness finds its origin in God's mercy, and that is the reason why it finds its true expression not in isolation from the world, but in turning to the world ... This by no means implies a weakening of the distinction between good and evil, faith and unbelief. Rather, the church, because of the seriousness of this antithesis, goes out into the world to witness. She does not do so despairing that the world cannot be saved, for then she would forget her own former lost condition as well as the sovereign election of God which called her from her darkness to His marvellous light. Every trace of a proud and legalistic antithesis is absent here. It is replaced by an apostolic fervour, which ... knows itself compelled by the love of Christ' (pp. 324-325, 327).
While these passages from Divine Election do not refer directly to social concern, their relevance to this discussion is clear. Berkouwer's rejection of the competition-motif with respect to divine authority and human activity, time and eternity, and salvation and service is of great significance for his development of a constructive theology of social concern.
Discussing 'the earthly horizon', he insists that '(h)uman activity ... cannot be reduced in priority to a 'secondary' issue, as though it is of less importance to whatever is given top priority'. He maintains that 'the gospel we believe is far removed from the picture of a future without bearing on the present, a heavenly hope without concern for the neighbor and his world'. He emphasizes that '(w)e are not dealing with a synthesis between religion and morality ... (but with) the divine concern for life within our human horizon'. He contends that the Christian is called to 'a life of involvement in the deep divine philanthropy that has once for all appeared in history'. Faith refuses 'to let our full obedience become a tension between primary and secondary accents' (A Half Century of Theology, p. 190, 214, p.191, 195). The significance of Berkouwer's theology of social concern is integrally related to his concern with the problem of polarization. This concern, which runs through his entire theology, is not merely pragmatic. His concern is that the fullness of Christian truth is properly represented in both Christian theology and Christian living. A theology which emphasizes one aspect of truth to the exclusion of another is reflected in a life which fails to live in accordance with the fullness of truth. The call to the Christian Church is, in Berkouwer's theology, to allow both its thinking and its living to be governed by the fullness of God's truth.
--

A Biblical Theology of Social Concern

Any theology which claims to be a Biblical theology is requires by that very claim to relate its understanding of social concern to its understanding of Scripture. A truly Biblical theology of social concern seeks to hear and heed all that Scripture has to say on the matter. We need to listen to the Gospel which stands over against both the tendency to conform to the mood of the moment and the tendency to ignore the social problems of the day. There are two inadequate approaches which a truly Biblical theology of social concern must seek to overcome:
(a) a theology which is chiefly man's justification for positions taken on
quite independent -social rather than Biblical - grounds;
(b) a theology which suggests that the mere proclamation of God's
justification of believing sinners does, by itself, ensure that social injustice is overcome.
Throughout Berkouwer's theology, there is an intensely practical emphasis. The practical character of his theology is observable in every doctrinal discussion. The practical value of his discussion of social concern is derived not merely from the 'practical' character of the subject but from the practical character of every theological statement. Man cannot speak of God rightly without being practically involved. This practical note runs through the entirety of Berkouwer's theology.
Berkouwer emphasizes that a truly Biblical theology of social concern will call for 'a life of involvement in the deep divine philanthropy that has once for all appeared in history', a life which gives expression to'the divine concern for life within our human horizon', a lifwe in which neither God nor the neighbour are ignored. He insists that a truly Biblical theology of social concern calls for full obedience without introducing a tension between primary and secondary accents (A Half Century of Theology, pp. 191, 195).
Berkouwer's Biblical theology of social concern is developed from his exegesis of significant Biblical passages drawn from both Testaments. He draws attention to the inseparability of love for God and concern for our neighbour.
Commenting on the Old Testament understanding of the relationship between love for God and concern for our neighbour, he writes, 'It is ridiculous to suppose that the Old Testament is guilty of being too heavily accented and one-sidedly concerned with the horizontal dimension of life, as though love for God might somehow get shortchanged by it. The service of the God of Israel and total concern for life within our horizon are inseparable ... His people can truly give all their attention to him without being lured away from their neighbors' (p.193).
This interpretation of the Old Testament is based on his exegesis of significant passages drawn from the Pentateuch, the Psalms and the Prophets (pp. 192-193). In the Pentateuch, the poor and needy are to be the concern of Israel, God's redeemed people (Exodus 23:1-9). In the Psalms, there is no competition between God's praise and man's need (Psalm 146). In the Prophets, there is a call for worldly concern which does not re the transcendent message (Amos 5).
Berkouwer continues this concentration on both God and man in his exegesis of significant New Testament passages (pp. 191-192, 195). The Gospels demand that neither nor love of God are to be neglected since man's relationship with God may not be isolated from his relationship with his fellow-man (Luke 11:42; Matthew 5:23-24). In the Epistles, concern for man is not regarded as a secondary matter since there is 'a radical unity between the love of God and concern for man'(p. 191) (Romans 13:8-10; 1 John 3:17).

A Reformed Theology of Social Concern

The Reformed character of Berkouwer's theology is directly related to its Biblical foundation. Discussing the Reformed principle - Scripture alone - , he writes, 'The function of the sola Scriptura in the Reformation was to focus attention on God's Word as a principle of interpretation over against human arbitrariness' (Holy Scripture, p.306). A proper understanding of this principle requires a clear understanding of what he is not saying as well as what he is saying.
The 'Scripture alone' principle may not be isolated from the Gospel since it emerges from a clearer understanding of the Gospel and points to the place where the Gospel is to be found. Berkouwer emphasizes the unbreakable connection between the 'Scripture alone' principle and the doctrine of the Gospel: 'The phrase sola Scriptura expressed a certain way of reading Scripture, implying a continual turning toward the gospel as the saving mesage of Scripture' (p. 306).
The 'Scripture alone' principle does not arise from a general preference for the old but from a rediscovery of the Gospel - 'The Reformers were aware of being confronted with the original and canonical gospel, not because it was ancient as such, but because of this concrete and qualitative "originality"' (p. 306).
The 'Scripture alone' principle does not represent a general distaste for tradition but a re-establishment of the Gospel tradition in the life of the Church - 'the term sola Scriptura represented "the struggle for the genuine tradition"' (p. 306). Berkouwer maintains that '(t)he Reformers did not wish to endanger the principle of tradition; rather, they wished to protect it' (p. 313).
There is, in the Reformed principle of 'Scripture alone', a 'radical rejection of addition', but not a 'simple repetition without new responsibilities for new times' (p.304). The function of this principle is to preserve the Church from being alienated from the Gospel in the face of the challenge of communicating the Gospel effectively in an ever-changing world.
The 'Scripture alone' principle is not the product of high-handed exclusiveness which draws attention to the pride of its proponents rather than the message of Scripture. Rather, it is a 'unique exclusiveness, deriving its structure from the broadness and universality of the gospel' (p.308). Since the Gospel is aimed at the whole world, proclaiming salvation to all peoples, the 'Scripture alone' principle becomes important not for the sake of sectarian exclusiveness but for the sake of a clearer understanding and more effective communication of the Gospel of salvation (pp. 308-309).
Berkouwer points out that, in this unique exclusiveness, the 'alone' must be understood in the light of the 'Scripture': 'The confession of'Scripture alone' does not begin with the 'alone' as a general principle, but with Scripture. For the meaning and weight of the 'alone' can be perceived only along that route' (p. 306).
The 'Scripture alone' principle may not be isolated from the other principles of the Reformation - 'grace alone', 'faith alone' and 'Christ alone'. Removed from the context of the rediscovery of the Gospel in Scripture, it becomes a rather colourless principle which lacks depth of understanding of the meaning of Scripture. When, however, the principles of 'grace alone', 'faith alone' and 'Christ alone' are allowed to operate independently of each other and of the 'Scripture alone' principle, theological speculation reaches dangerous conclusions.
An important implication of the 'Scripture alone' principle is the recognition of the importance of the whole of Scripture. Theology requires this perspective if it is to avoid the dangerous selectivity which is governed by personal preference. The tendency to overemphasize what one wants to hear while ignoring what one does not want to hear requires to be kept in check by the insistence that every part of Scripture has its proper place and function and that no part of Scripture is to be regarded as unimportant.
This emphasis on the importance of every part of Scripture does not amount to a levelling procedure by which every part of Scripture is ascribed equal importance. Scripture is to be regarded as an 'organic whole' (p. 192). No part of Scripture is to be arbitrarily lifted out of this context.
This emphasis on the whole of Scripture is important in the face of
(a) the distortion of the 'grace alone' principle which suggests that we
can be saved by grace without faith (The Return of Christ, pp. 422-423);
(b) the distortion of the 'faith alone' principle in which there is an overestimation of faith at the expense of grace (Faith and Justification, p. 87);
(c) the distortion of the 'Christ alone' principle which tends to replace rather than complement the doctrine of creational revelation (General Revelation, pp.104-107).
This emphasis excludes the heavy-handed approach to Scripture which tends to regard as insignificant those portions of Scripture which do not appear to place such a heavy accent on the 'grace alone', 'faith alone' and 'Christ alone' principles.
The 'Scripture alone' principle, with its emphasis on the importance of the whole of Scripture, is of paramount importance for the discussion of social concern. The evangelism - social concern polarization results from a failure to listen to all that Scripture says concerning Christian living.
This polarization can be overcome only where there is a determination to submit every theological preference to the authority of the whole of Scripture. A truly biblical and Reformed theology of social concern calls for a resolute refusal to bolster one's own theological preferences by emphasizing one's favourite passages while other passages are tacitly ignored.

A Contemporary Theology of Social Concern

Berkouwer's theology of social concern is set in the context of his conviction that 'theological reflection cannot survive as a repetition, a preservation of once-for-all achieved and now unchangeable dogmatic systems'. Concerning the challenge of interpreting the Christian faith for the contemporary world, hre writes, 'surely Reformation thinking is by definiton willing to accept the challenge' (A Half Century of Theology, p.8).
As a Reformed theologian, Berkouwer seeks to be a biblical theologian, the boundaries of whose reflection are set by Scripture. As a Reformed theologian, he seeks to be a contemporary theologian who refuses to be limited by the boundaries set by a theological interpretation which has tended towards a fossilizing of the Christian faith.
Berkouwer approaches the contemporary social situation with the principle - ' Personal conversion and sanctification is not able to overcome the immorality of society' (A Half Century of Theology, p. 185). Rejecting the personal faith - social concern polarization, Berkouwer echoes the teaching of Calvin who insists that while 'civil government ... is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ ... they are not adverse to each other' (Institutes, IV, xx, 2).
The deepest roots of Berkouwer's approach to the contemporary social situation are not to be found in the sixteenth century but in Scripture.
The moral law calls for a right relationship with both God and man. The words and works of Jesus represent a radical reversal of economic, political and social ideologies which are governed by self-interest rather than justice and mercy.
World-flight is excluded by a movement towards the world with a view to world-transformation.
A Biblical and Reformed theology confesses its faith in the sovereignty of God over the whole world and the love of God for the whole man. It cannot settle for the 'sacred' realm of inner piety while the 'secular' world is treated as though it existed independently of the sovereign love of God.
Contemporary society is increasingly threatened by demoralization and dehumanization as the love of power and the love of money militate against the love of God and the love of the neighbour.
This dual responsibility of love for both God and the neighbour demands that Christian witness in the contemporary situation may be neither reduced to its social implications nor emptied of them.

Our Faith is rooted in the Truth of the Gospel.

2011-12-21T00:35:00.001Z

Berkouwer emphasizes both objectivity and subjectivity.

He does this by emphasizing that faith’s subjective certainty is rooted in the truth of the Gospel.

“Faith involves a certain subjectivity, … a subjectivity which has meaning only as it is bound to the gospel.” (Faith and Justification, p. 30).

“the church’s … certainty is bound to certain norms and … a feeling of subjective certainty does not guarantee irrefutable certainty … it is not the certainty, but the truth in the certainty that makes us free … there is away of understanding Holy Scripture that does not estrange us from the gospel.” (Holy Scripture, p. 20).

Believing in the love of God and being changed by the love of God

2011-12-21T00:35:00.000Z

In The Providence of God, G C Berkouwer relates providence to both the love of God as the object of the believer's faith and the believer's faith by which providence is subjectively experienced.

"in the doctrine of providence we have a specific Christian confession exclusively possible through a true faith in Jesus Christ ... this faith is no general, vague notion of Providence. It has a concrete focus: 'If God is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?' (Rom.8:31,32) ... the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. There is no purer expression than this of the depth of man's faith in God's Providence. " (pp. 45, 47).

G C Berkouwer and Apologetics

2011-12-21T00:34:00.000Z

Berkouwer, Gerrit C. (1903-1996)
Throughout his lengthy career as Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, he sought to understand the gospel more deeply. Best known for his multi-volumed Studies in Dogmatics, his chief work was in dogmatics rather than apologetics. His writings contain valuable insights relating to the work of apologetics. From his Studies in Dogmatics, there are two important discussions - 'Apostolicity and Truth' in The Church and 'Faith and Criticism' in Holy Scripture. Also of considerable interest are two chapters in A Half Century of Theology - ' The Era of Apologetics' and 'Faith and Reasonableness'. Distinguishing between an authentic authority and an unwarranted authoritarianism, he affirmed the essential reasonableness of the gospel. The call to faith in Christ is not a call for blind obedience. Believing in Christ does not require a sacrifice of the intellect. He also affirmed the spiritual character of the gospel, distancing himself from the kind of apologetics which tends to place undue emphasis on the capacity of human reason to bring people to faith in Christ. He rejected the idea of faith as a sacrifice of the intellect without ever suggesting that faith is no more than an act of unaided human reason. Recognizing the value of apologetics without attaching an exaggerated importance to it, he emphasized the need for both humility and courage in the defence of the Christian faith. In humility, apologetics must take care to avoid an unattractively militant approach. Resisting the temptation to trim the content of its message in search of relevance, apologetics should, with courage, affirm the gospel's irreducible content. Emphasizing the gospel's own inherent apologetic significance, he was critical of the kind of apologetics which shows little interest in those elements of Christian faith adjudged to be less apologetically relevant.
Bibliography
G. C. Berkouwer, A Half Century of Theology (Grand Rapids, 1977), pp. 25-38, 144-178; Holy Scripture, (Grand Rapids, 1975), pp.346-366; The Church, (Grand Rapids, 1976), pp.232-256
C. M. Cameron, The Problem of Polarization: An Approach based on the Writings of G. C. Berkouwer, (Lewiston, Queenston and Lampeter, 1992), pp. 247-284
---
I wrote this article for the "New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics."

Berkouwer’s Theology of the Christian Life

2011-12-21T00:33:00.000Z

Berkouwer places great emphasis on the practical character of theological reflection.

This emphasis is grounded in his understanding of the doctrines of (a) God; (b) revelation; and (c) reconciliation.

Underlying his interpretation of these doctrines is his understanding of grace.

The divine grace which comes to us through revelation and reconciliation is not, in Berkouwer’s view, a coercive power which devalues the significance of human activity.

Human activity is not, however, given an entirely autonomous significance that is quite independent of divine grace.

Man knows, through divine revelation and reconciliation, that he is dependent on divine grace without being destroyed by divine power (Divine Election (DE), pp. 47-50).

The Practical Significance of Berkouwer’s Doctrine of God

Berkouwer seeks to construct a theology which does full justice to both the true objectivity of the Christian faith and the necessity for that faith to be a subjectively experienced faith.

We are not to think of grace as “God is everything, man is nothing” (A Half Century of Theology (HCT), p. 208, citing Karl Barth). We are not, on the other hand, to turn the ‘God is everything, man is nothing’ on its head and make man the centre of our thinking. Man’s true freedom is found in willing and glad submission to the sovereign God of salvation. In seeking to understand our life in relation to God, we are concerned with the whole man and not simply a ‘religious’ part of man.

As we seek to understand and proclaim the Gospel, we must never forget that it is both the Gospel of God and the Gospel for man. As the Gospel of God, it is a Gospel of grace. As the Gospel for man, it is a Gospel which calls for faith.

* Berkouwer’s rejection of the idea that ‘God is everything’ and ‘man is nothing’ enables him to reject an ethical passivity which lacks the urgency of the Gospel’s ethical imperative (DE, Chapter 7, “Election and the Preaching of the Gospel”, pp. 218-253).

* By refusing to turn this notion around and make man the centre of his thinking, he is able also to reject an irreligious moralism which operates independently of the Gospel’s gracious initiative (the title of Berkouwer’s book, Faith and Sanctification, emphasizes the unbreakable connection between faith and sanctification).

* Berkouwer’s rejection of any conception by which God is restricted to a ‘religious’ sphere of life enables him to reject an individualistic otherworldliness which lacks the comprehensiveness of the Gospel’s orientation towards the whole man. Here, we may note Berkouwer’s comment on Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the “deep this-worldliness of Christianity”. He says that it “close(s) the door to flight into the ‘beyond’ without ‘de-eschatologiz(ing) the Gospel’” (HCT, p. 214).

A proper understanding of the Christian life is, in Berkouwer’s view, rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of God.

* Ethical passivity is excluded by the Gospel’s demand for obedience.

* Irreligious moralism is excluded by the Gospel’s demand that such obedience is to be offered with gratitude to God.

* Individualistic otherworldliness is excluded by the Gospel’s demand for the obedience of the whole man.

The character of Christian living and its relationship to God is well expressed by Berkouwer in a passage where he contrasts conformity to God’s law and obedience to God: “A conformity is possible which is abstracted from the consideration of the Giver of the law, while the defining characteristic of obedience lies in listening to God’s command … The commandment of God is not an inert law, which man can impersonally fulfil or not, but something which calls for a total and personal relationship, in the giving over of the heart, and therein of the whole man, to obedience. In this relation, any abstraction is illegitimate. Obedience is always response to the divine demand and excludes every merely legalistic understanding of the law” (Man: The Image of God, pp. 177-178, emphasis mine).

Such a personal relationship with the living God, characterized by thankful obedience, is the indispensable foundation upon which Berkouwer builds his theology of the Christian life.

The Practical Significance of Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Revelation

When we speak of the importance of divine revelation, it is vital that we emphasize its connection with the Christian life. If theological reflection is to avoid becoming barren intellectualism, it is important to remember that the faith of the Church “comes out of the experience of God’s people struggling to hear his Word in the context of life” (M E Osterhaven, The Faith of the Church: A Reformed Perspective on Its Historical Development, p. 7).

* By emphasizing the divine initiative in revelation, Berkouwer rejects an anthropocentric subjectivism which makes human experience the ultimate criterion by which truth is judged

* By emphasizing the active character of man’s reception of revelation, he rejects an authoritarian objectivism which tends to remove the confession of Biblical authority from its context in the life of faith.

* By emphasizing the decisive character of man’s reception of revelation, he rejects an ontological speculation which tends to minimize the significance of man’s believing response to Christ.

A proper understanding of the Christian life is, in Berkouwer’s view, rooted in a proper understanding of the doctrine of revelation.

The Christian life is to be lived by man. Its foundation is not, however, to be found in man – “This directedness of the gospel is and remains focused on man, but cannot in its structure and horizon be hermeneutically approached from human existence itself – through a neutral analysis – but only from the content and direction of the evangel itself” (Holy Scripture (HS), pp. 123-124).

With this emphasis on the content and direction of the evangel itself, Berkouwer dissociates himself from three dangerous theological interpretations which tend to distort the character of the Christian life.

(i) The normativity of the evangel excludes the idea of human experience being given “constitutive importance in the determination of the central focus of Holy Scripture” (HS, p. 124).

The normativity of the evangel demands that there be no disrespect for the “concrete words” of Scripture through which the Spirit seeks to bind men to Christ (HS, p. 166).

(ii) The normativity of the evangel excludes the idea of Biblical authority being isolated from the evangelical purpose of Scripture: “When the ‘acceptance’ of Holy Scripture as the Word of God is separated from a living faith in Christ, it is meaningless and confusing to call this acceptance belief in Scripture or an ‘element’ of the Christian faith. This does not imply an underestimation of Scripture or of belief in it, but rather a great respect for Scripture, which addresses itself to our faith” (HS, p. 54).

Insisting that “(b)elieving Scripture does not mean staring at a holy and mysterious book but hearing the witness concerning Christ”, Berkouwer refuses to separate the acceptance of the Bible’s authority from the experience of “being gripped by the message to which its words testify” (HS, pp. 166-167).

The meaning and intention of the words must be understood if their authority is to be properly acknowledged.

(iii) The normativity of the evangel excludes the idea of the self-revelation of the gracious God being related to the existence of sinful man in a manner which lacks the urgency of the Biblical proclamation which “cannot be silenced … (and) is the very opposite of passivity or fatalism” (HS, p. 328): “’Behold, now is the acceptable time: behold, now is the day of salvation’ (II Cor. 6:2) … the gospel … does not only seek man in a timeless sector of his life – his intellect or feeling – but seeks to reach him in his total and concrete existence. It is not sufficient to refer here to preaching in its ‘objective’ reality, with which any kind of subjectivity must correspond. God’s word does not address man in abstract isolation but in his real life” (HS, pp. 328-329, emphasis mine).

Salvation is “not presented to us as a deed which as a matter of course comes to all, but as a calling of God … an invitation, a call to conversion” (Divine Election, pp. 235-236).

The personal relationship with the living God which is, for Berkouwer, the indispensable presupposition of the Christian life is entered upon through receiving with faith the Christ to whom the Biblical witness points. The sustenance of this relationship is rooted in a continual turning to this Christ in faith.

This emphasis requires to be maintained in the face of both a materialism which seeks to live by bread alone and a mysticism which, though it may continue to speak of a ‘Christ’, has dispensed with the Biblical Christ.

Biblical faith is neither a retreat into an ‘other-worldliness’ which sees no real significance in this world nor a retreat into a ‘this-worldliness’ of the secularist type.

The Practical Significance of Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Reconciliation

There are three inter-related aspects of divine reconciliation – (a) reconciliation to God, (b) reconciliation between human beings, (b) reconciliation within man himself. These aspects of divine reconciliation may not be arbitrarily separated from each other.

* The full meaning of divine reconciliation is not exhausted by an ethical analysis of human existence. Even where such an analysis proceeds on the basis of the ethical teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, it must be adjudged to be inadequate. If we are to achieve an adequate theological understanding of both the work of Christ and the human experience of reconciliation, we must build upon this foundation – reconciliation to God (Berkouwer discusses reconciliation in The Work of Christ (WCh), pp. 254-294).

* The full meaning of divine reconciliation is not exhausted by the individualistic notion of a reconciliation to God which does not significantly affect relationships between human beings. Those who are brought into fellowship with God through Christ are brought into fellowship with one another in Christ’s Church which is called to be “one body in Christ” (Romans 12:4; Berkouwer, The Church (Ch), pp. 78-81).

Insisting that “the severance of unity is a catastrophe for the world”, Berkouwer writes, “John 17 says as much, but we are so accustomed to disunity that we are in danger of becoming immune to its warning” (Ch, p. 46).

* The full meaning of divine reconciliation is not exhausted by an anthropology which relates God to a ‘religious’ part of man. It is the whole man who is both reconciled to God and called to live under the Lordship of Christ. Reconciliation to God involves neither a form of emotional escapism by which we commit intellectual suicide nor a form of other-worldly mysticism which is irrelevant to the concerns of this world.

Here, we emphasize that apologetics and social concern are not artificially attached to the gospel of reconciliation. They are integrally related to it.

(a) Discussing the meaning of Christ’s work of reconciliation, Berkouwer writes, “Reconciliation can be misconceived by ascribing the final decision to man, but also by objectifying it in preaching and by disqualifying unbelief not as sin and guilt but as a relatively unimportant foolishness (compared with God’s decision).” (WCh, p. 294, brackets original).

* Rejecting the former misconception, Berkouwer insists that “The admonition ‘be ye reconciled to God’ is … not an admonition to co-operation in the work of reconciliation, but the call to live in faith out of this reconciliation” (WCh, pp. 291-292).

* Rejecting the latter misconception, he contends that “God does not so much call our attention to the abyss from which we have been saved and the judgment tat lies behind us, as to the judgment that lies ahead, ‘namely, if we do not believe that in Christ (the former judgment) lies behind us” (WCh, pp. 293-294, citing H Berkhof, Crisis der Middenorthodoxie, pp. 37-40). H Berkhof comments helpfully on the relationship between judgment and proclamation – “The Bible speaks much about the terror of the judgment, but almost exclusively it concerns God’s enemies … all who knowingly and willingly oppose the proclamation and realization of His holy love in the world. Who are the ones who do that ‘knowingly and willingly’? We cannot point them out. The judgment will reveal it … Ours is the duty to call people to conversion in this life, and what God does with them in eternity is not our business.” (Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of Faith, pp. 530-531).

* Rejecting the idea that “God works half, and man the other half” and emphasizing that “God works all, and man does all” (A P F Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, p. 98, emphasis mine, citing the words of John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan from W Knight (editor), Colloquia Peripatetica …, p. 30), Berkouwer draws attention to the Gospel’s emphasis on the absolute necessity of both grace and faith.

Concerning the significance for the Christian life of the ‘by grace – through faith’ character of reconciliation, he writes, “it is the marvel of the work of the Holy Spirit that those who really respond to the proclamation of reconciliation claim no merit whatsoever for that response, but rather find the essence of their joy and gratitude in God, who reconciled us unto himself” (WCh, p. 294).

There is no question of overemphasizing either grace or faith. Both are to be given the full emphasis given to them by the Gospel. There can, however, be a wrong emphasis – a failure to give both grace and faith their full emphasis.

This represents a misunderstanding of the relationship between grace and faith, which produces a distorted view of the Christian life.

A proper understanding of the Christian life is based on a proper understanding of the Gospel of reconciliation, in which both sides of its ‘by grace – through faith’ character are given their full emphasis.

(b) Berkouwer discusses the meaning of ‘Fellowship’ in terms of both privilege and responsibility: “The fact of belonging to Christ – in indicative and imperative, in gift and calling – entrusts a great deal to the Church, specifically the right, even in brokenness, to testify to true, new fellowship” (Ch, p. 101, emphasis mine).

The privilege and responsibility of fellowship is rooted in “God’s saving, reconciling action … (through which) (e)very individual need receives His undivided attention; yet, at the same time … by which the individual receives a human fellowship, ending all individualism” (Ch, p. 77).

By emphasizing both the privilege and the responsibility of fellowship, Berkouwer rejects both a pessimism which is insufficiently aware of the reality of grace and an apathy which pays insufficient attention to the responsibility of faith.

Berkouwer has absolutely refused to develop his theology in the direction of a religious individualism which pays scant attention to complex ecclesiological issues.

The perspective in which he sets those issues is most valuable because of his concern for both unity and truth. He affirms the importance of both unity and truth from the standpoint of involvement.

He does not seek a ‘unity’ which tends to ignore the complexity of the problems which have given rise to pessimism and apathy.

He does not, however, advocate the kind of commitment to ‘truth’ which is narrowly sectarian in outlook.

He expresses his view thus: “the search for common denominator ecumenicity is a fruitless way to seek unity. But it is no compromise of the faith to point to a common call to discipleship of Jesus Christ and to the gospel Paul preached, Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism, p. 257). Concerning the “mistaken kind of ecumenism which glosses over genuine differences and seems to suggest that every point of view is equally valid, so long as it is sincerely held”, J Macquarrie writes, “Those who think in this way are really saying that there is neither truth nor untruth in theology; and this implies, in turn, that the whole theological enterprise is a waste of time” (Principles of Christian Theology (PCT), p. viii).

(iii) Berkouwer emphasizes that “it is the whole man who is restored and saved” (Man: The Image of God, p. 229). In view of the comprehensiveness of God’s salvation, no single aspect of Christian communication – proclamation, apologetics, social concern – can be regarded as the entirety of Christian witness.

Finding “its basic resources within the gospel itself”, apologetics will carefully avoid turning the Gospel into “an echo of what was present in our heart before we came to it, a rewording of what we had already thought” (A Half Century of Theology, pp. 177, 73).

Grounded in the Gospel, social action will complement rather than compete with devotion to “prayer and … the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4 – The episode described in Acts 6:1-6 is most instructive for the modern Church. “Prayer and the ministry of the word” and social concern are not treated as mutually exclusive alternatives. Neither are expendable since they belong together in the total context of the Church’s witness in the world.

The Gospel of reconciliation excludes an intellectualism which remains rather remote from the life of fellowship, and an otherworldliness which remains rather remote from the life of service. In PCT, J Macquarrie seeks to avoid the dangers of (a) an intellectualism in which theology, forgetting “its roots in experience … becomes a mere scholasticism” (pp. 5-6); (b) an individualism in which theology becomes “subjective, introspective and individualistic” because of a failure to “keep in view the experience of the whole community of faith” (p. 6) and (c) an otherworldliness in which theology insulates itself against “all contact with the changing forms of secular culture” and thud fails to address itself “to its own day and generation” (p. 13).

We may note with interest Macquarrie’s concern with maintaining “a proper balance … between …experience and revelation” (p.7) without “try(ing) to be modern for the sake of modernity, … (without) accomodat(ing) the revelation to the mood of the time” (p. 13).
Contemporary theology requires to give close and careful attention to “(t)he problem … of maintaining a fine balance … (, of) find(ing) a way between … dangerous extremes” (p. 13).

Christian theology gives expression to the truth which can only be known by faith yet is not itself produced by faith (Holy Scripture, pp. 9-10). The divine Reality can only be known through being in a relation of faith toward that Reality (Man: The Image of God, p. 35).

Berkouwer and Systematic Theology

2011-12-14T15:57:00.000Z

Sometimes, it is said that Berkouwer's theology is not very systematic. In my book, I comment on this kind of criticism. I think that, to appreciate the systematic quality of Berkouwer's theology, you need to get deeply into it, reading quite a bit of his work and thinking along with him.
I have tended to regard his work on 'Holy Scripture' & 'Divine Election' as important though admittedly, many others are less happy with these volumes).
The more I reflected on these books, the more I felt that he wasn't being unsystematic. He was opening up perspectives which shed new light on to these doctrines.
In my book, I expound Berkouwer's doctrines of Scripture & election, seeking - along the way - to defend his approach against his critics.
An important aspect of Berkouwer's approach is summed up in the two principles - Speak where Scripture speaks. Remain silent where Scripture remains silent.
There is, however, another aspect of Berkouwer's approach which is worthy of mention. He was a creative thinker. The first book to alert me to Berkouwer was P E Hughes (ed.), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology'. By describing him as a creative thinker, I'm not suggesting that he goes his own way, creating his own theology while paying little attention to the Scriptures. He has, however, shown a willingness to re-think theological interpretations which many have thought were settled & not up for discussion.
An example of this is found in his way of handling the doctrine of election where, being unwilling simply to set divine sovereignty & human responsibility over against each other and leave it at that, he suggests a way in which we might affirm both in a more harmonious manner.

Berkouwer and Speculative Theology

2011-12-14T15:56:00.000Z

It has been said that, in Berkouwer's writings, there is a polemic against speculative theology'. We should take care not to overstate this point. His theology can be described as a polemic against scholasticism.
In his exposition of divine election, he has identified a scholastic outlook as unhelpful in its representation of the various sides of Biblical truth. For that reason, he has set about re-thinking the doctrine. Those who disagree with him would say that he has been speculative. Those who appreciate his interpretation would say that his approach has achieved a more Biblical balance than the more scholastic approach.
In Berkouwer's theology - especially his interpretation of 'election and rejection' where he speaks differently from others who speak about 'election and reprobation’ - some have observed the principle: if the Scripture contains teaching which does not seem logically consistent, so be it.
Here, we might draw a distinction between what is normally thought of as ‘logic' & what we might call 'psycho-logic' (this is not an expression used by Berkouwer!) We need to get inside the experience of faith. Our theological language emerges from the experience of faith. Faith is seeking to give expression to something which goes beyond our words. Faith speaks of God's grace. This is something we can barely put into words.
I am not suggesting that we make our experience of faith normative for our theological thinking. I am simply observing that the experience of faith is the context out of which we make our confession of faith. This is an important part of the context within which our theological reflection takes place).

Berkouwer on Divine Providence

2011-12-14T15:55:00.000Z

The distinction between observation and faith is important for theological reflection concerning divine providence if theology is to avoid reaching misguided conclusions.

Warning against "the danger of going outside the sphere of faith into the area of observation", Berkouwer disputes "the legitimacy of interpreting the ways of Providence on the basis of facts" (The Providence of God (PG), pp. 164-165).

He aims to guard against the possibility that "everyone according to his own prejudice and subjective whim (can) canonize a certain event or national rise as a special act of God in which He reveals and demonstrates His favour" (PG, p. 164).

Acutely aware that "the interpretation of an historical event as a special revelation of Providence too easily becomes a pious;y disguised form of self-justification" (PG, p. 166), Berkouwer insists that "no event speaks so clearly that we may conclude from it a certain disposition of God - as long as God Himself does not reveal that His disposition comes to expression in the given event" (PG, p. 170).

Concerning events in the history of Israel which are recorded in Scripture, Berkouwer writes, "The Divine disposition is, indeed, revealed in these events. But it is the word of revelation which explains them" (PG, p. 171, emphasis mine).

Concerning the interpretation of contemporary events, he warns, "we have not been given a norm for explaining the facts of history ... in the absence of a norm only an untrustworthy plausibility remains" (PG, p. 171).

Using insightful exegesis of Scripture, Berkouwer warns against a misguided interpretation of contemporary events. Commenting on the words, "Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?" (Amos 9:7), he writes, "the fact of the exodus may not be used as basis, isolated from revelation and seen by itself from which to draw selfish conclusions about God's disposition ... AS a mere historical fact, the exodus puts Israel on the same level with other nations. But accompanied by a proper faith in God, it constitutes a challenge and, given the proper response, further blessing" (PG, p. 176, emphasis original).

Neither Christendom nor Communism has a right to point to the failures of the other while remaining oblivious to its own inadequacies. Both are challenged to self-examination by their own professed ideals.

Commenting on the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38-39), Berkouwer cites A. Kuyper: "It is not true that God the Lord destroys forthwith that which is not from Him and crowns with success every endeavor of His believers" (PG, p.173 - from Revisie der revisie-legende, 1879).

A comparison of societies may not be used to vindicate a particular world-view since worldly success does not necessarily imply truth.

Berkouwer develops a Christocentric approach to divine providence: "It is possible to speak correctly about God's Providence only on the basis of the blood of the cross. Otherwise we will certainly fall into one of many possible arbitrary interpretations of history ... All events are embraced in the one work of God, which is explained for all time by His Word. Thus, there can be no proceeding from facts or events isolated from that revelation" (PG, p. 178).

This Christocentric doctrine of providence may not be identified with the Marxist conception of religion as "the opium of the people" (Karl Marx: Selected Writings on Sociology and Social Philosophy, edited by Bottomore and Rubel, p. 41)since it is grounded in the Christ who "tells us to seek first the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33); which is to say that the peace of mind that the Gospel gives does not allow us to decline into the superficialities of comfortable bourgeois living" (PG, p. 181).

When Berkouwer writes, "He who sees thins this way will never succumb to the temptation to identify prosperity with blessing and adversity with curse. In faith, however, one can accept prosperity as the gift of God, and adversity as God's hand graciously leading him to greater faith" (PG,p. 179), he is far removed from a hypocritical attitude which is devoid of social concern.

Berkouwer’s Theology - Systematic and Experiential

2011-12-14T15:54:00.000Z

For many years, G C Berkouwer (1903-1996) served as the Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Univesity of Amsterdam. He wrote many substantial books on Christian doctrine. These books are known collectively as his ‘Studies in Dogmatics’.
In his work as a systematic theologian, Berkouwer emphasized that Christian faith is to be experienced. It is not simply a faith to which we must give intellectual assent.
He was very aware of the danger of attaching the wrong kind of importance to the theological system.He emphasized that, in the work of expounding Christian doctrine, we must not lose sight of its connection to Christian experience.
By drawing attention, throughout his writings, to the importance of Christian experience, he was not suggesting that we are to retreat into sheer mysticism. He was, however, emphasizing that true faith is always something which takes hold of us, something which changes us, something which leads us to give glory to God. The life-changing and God-glorifying dimensions of faith in Jesus Christ must be at the centre of any exposition of the Christian faith.
For Berkouwer, placing an appropriate emphasis on the significance of Christian experience did not involve moving away from the work of systematic theology to focus on producing devotional literature. Rather, it meant viewing our theological work as an expression of our faith, worship, witness and service.
We may give a flavour of Berkouwer’s approach to theology by highlighting a few comments made by Jack Rogers in his book, Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical. (An American Presbyterian, Rogers did postgraduate work at the Free University of Amsterdam under Berkouwer’s supervision. His thesis - Scripture in the Westminster Confession was published by Eerdmans in 1967. He translated Berkouwer’s work on Holy Scripture into English.)
(1) Berkouwer’s approach to theology does not create a great distance between the professional theologian and the ordinary believer.
Commenting on a definition of theology given by Berkouwer to first-year students - ‘Theology is scientific reflection on the normativity of revelation for faith’ - , Rogers writes, ‘The scientific theologian and the simple believer both begin from a personal faith commitment to God revealed in Jesus Christ. They both accept revelation as normative for them … they treat the biblical data as having ultimate value and valid
application to their lives … The professional theologian is distinguished from any other believer only in that the theologian has the training and tools for doing “scientific” reflection’ (p.56).
(2) In his approach to theology, Berkouwer emphasized the importance of the sense of wonder which lies at the heart of both true worship and profound theological understanding.
Describing his first impressions of Berkouwer’s theological lectures, Rogers writes, ‘(H)e was excited and dynamic! I began to hear certain words repeated again and again. One of them was boeiend , which means ‘fascinating’. Everything about theology fascinated Berkouwer. His enthusiasm was catching. After listening to him, you wanted to grab the nearest theological book and devour it. Talking to him was even more stimulating’ (p.52).
(3) In his approach to theology, Berkouwer emphasized the importance of the pastoral context within which the Word of God is to be brought to the people of God.
Describing a visit made by Berkouwer to a church in the USA, Rogers writes, ‘The worshippers were disappointed by his sermon. They could
understand it! They expected the great professor to be profound (i.e. abstract, dull). Instead, he preached a simple gospel sermon of pastoral comfort and affirmation. For Berkouwer, theology is always and only the servant of the church. Theology is good only if it can be preached!’ (pp. 141-142).

* Following on from these observations concerning the vital connection between theology and believing, worshipping and preaching, we must note the breadth of the context within which Berkouwer developed his systematic and experiential theology. He carefully avoided the narrowness of outlook which refuses to listen to and learn from those whose theological perspective was considerably different from his own. Alongside this listening to and learning from others, he emphasized that our highest priority is listening to and learning from God’s Word.

(a) Berkouwer was willing to listen to and learn from those whose theological perspective was quite different from his own.

‘In America we often do theology as if it was a game of cops and robbers. We choose … sides, thinking that the ‘good guys’ (those we agree with) say and do all the good things and that the ‘bad guys’ (those we disagree with) say and do all the bad things. Life isn’t like that. I can remember how puzzled I was when I started reading G C Berkouwer to discover him quoting Rudolf Bultmann, for instance, with great approval in one place and then a few pages later vigorously disagreeing with him. He didn’t seem to need to add a footnote to remind us that Bultmann was a bad guy. He dealt with the issues instead of putting down the people’ (Rogers, p.60).

(b) Berkouwer emphasized the importance of a continuing commitment to this demanding yet promising task of listening and learning.

‘I believe that without genuine curiosity … theology will not do well. I regret every sign that theologians have lost their curiosity. It happens when we are satisfied with a small territory we have created for ourselves and lose our feel for new perspectives and new opportunities for enrichment. Besides, without the tensions of curosity there is little hope for any essential corrections in one’s own insights. A complacency sets in, a feeling that the gospel has been adequately thought about and understood, and that we can restfully settle down with what has already been said. A curiosity that works itself out in passionate study and serious listening to others promises surprises, clearer insight and deeper understanding - no matter from which direction they come. And so curiosity brings a certain joy as we walk through the challenging terrain’ (A Half Century of Theology, pp.7-8).

On being personally attacked because of his involvement in ecumenical affairs, Berkouwer cited ‘II Tim. 2:9 … “The word of God is not bound”‘, emphasizing that ‘as long as we read the same Bible with conservatives or liberals, Catholics or sectarians, we can’t predict the outcome. God’s Spirit will work through his Word’ (Rogers, p.142).

Introducing Berkouwer’s Theology

2011-12-14T15:53:00.000Z

‘Dilemmas always are a source of polarization. We quickly move over to simplistic either-or’s … in which the fulness of truth is torn apart. And in the atmosphere of false polarities, we often stop listening to each other’s words. With this, irritation and pique poison the theological discussion. But it is striking and, at the same time, reassuring that the clear intent of the gospel comes through even in the midst of theological polarization, especially when all the parties intend to be faithful to the gospel’ (A Half Century of Theology, p.208).

In these words, Berkouwer offers a persepective which promises to be most helpul in the discussion of theological polarization.

These words of Berkouwer come immediately after a favourable citation of Karl Barth’s repudiation of ‘(t)he construct, “God is everything, man is nothing”, as a description of grace’.

The immediate context of these words - an attempt to understand how God and man are related to each other in the Gospel - provides us with an important starting-point as we seek to develop a constructive approach to the problem of theological polarization.

As we concentrate attention on the relationship between God and ourselves - seeking to avoid a one-sided perspective - , we will take care not to impose on the Christian message a theological ’system’ which does not permit the Gospel to be understood and proclaimed in the fulness of its Biblical perspectives.

It is vitally important that theological system-building takes account of Christian experience. If we are to achieve a faithful understanding of the Gospel, it is essential that we pay close attention to the relationship between Christian doctrine and Christian experience.

True faith is more than an adherence to a particular type of theology. It is a ‘life response of the total person, at the depths of his being, to the summons and opportunity of the Gospel’ (L B Smedes, ‘G C Berkouwer’ in P E Hughes (ed), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology).

Taking account of the experiential dimension in Christian faith does not mean that we must succumb to the temptation of making the Gospel message fit a particular understanding of human experience. The Gospel speaks to us in the whole of our life. It does not merely inform our intellect, calling only for our intellectual assent. It does not merely affect our emotions without calling also for the renewal of our mind. It calls for our response to Christ in every part of our life.

Building on the theological perspective opened up for us by Berkouwer, we hope to develop a contemporary theology which is both systematic and experiential, a theology which will instruct the mind and inspire the heart.

Berkouwer on “‘Luther and Calvin’ on ‘Paul and James’”

2011-12-10T12:27:00.000Z

The views of Luther and Calvin regarding the relationship between Paul and James - this is not merely a matter of historical curiosity. Rather, it points towards a way of of overcoming the evangelism - social concern polarization.

Both Luther and Calvin were committed to the principles of “grace alone”, “faith alone”, “Christ alone” and “Scripture alone”. Both viewed the epistle of James in relation to what was regarded as “the incontrovertible and central message of salvation” (Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, (1975; Dutch, two volumes, 1965, 1967), p. 95).

They did, however, reach different conclusions concerning this epistle. Luther held that it “has no evangelical nature to it” (p. 93; cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Message of James”, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June 1965), p. 182). Calvin wrote that “it contains nothing unworthy of an Apostle of Christ” (Calvin’s Commentaries - from “The Argument on the Epistle of James”; cf. Cranfield, “The Message of James”, p. 183).

Berkouwer insists that Calvin’s favourable estimation of the epistle of James does not reflect a weaker commitment to the doctrine of the Gospel (Faith and Justification, (1954; Dutch - 1949), pp. 131-139). His interpretation of the Paul-James question is in line with Calvin’s view.

Berkouwer holds that Luther’s criticisms of James reflect a limited insight into the relationship between Paul and James (Holy Scripture, p. 96). He interprets Luther critically and appreciatively. His perceptive remarks are most pertinent to the development of a theology of social concern. Critical of Luther’s principle “that which sets forth Christ” in his interpretation of James, Berkouwer insists that every exegetical principle must proceed on the basis of the recognition of “the limitations and continuing growth of our insight” (p. 96; cf. Cranfield, “The Message of James”, p. 182, n. 6 where it is suggested that words written by Luther two days before his death (cited from W. Niesel, Reformed Symbolics: A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, (1962), p. 227) “seem to indicate a humbler attitude toward Scripture, and perhaps Niesel is right in seeing in them something of a recantation of earlier too cocksure utterances” (p. 183 - continuing n. 6, begun on p. 182; referring to Niesel, p. 230)). Berkouwer says, “It is incorrect to say that Luther later retracted his criticisms (of the epistle of James) ” (Holy Scripture, p. 95, n. 111, brackets mine). Berkouwer is quite correct since there was no specific retraction of Luther’s criticism of the epistle of James. Irrespective of the particular question of Luther’s view of the epistle of James, the words written by Luther two days before his death embody an important recognition of the limitation of theology’s grasp of the meaning of the Scriptures.

Appreciative of the Biblical character of Luther’s understanding of the Gospel, Berkouwer issues this warning to contemporary theology: “the methodology of every ‘canon-in-the-canon’ is dangerous, especially when it manifestly contradicts the church’s - and Luther’s - recipere of the gospel” (p. 97; “and Luther’s”, emphasis mine; “recipere”, italics original). Like Luther, Berkouwer emphasizes the relationship between Scripture and the Gospel. The confession of Scripture’s canonical authority does not, for Berkouwer, involve an assertion that “its boundaries must be readily provable and perspicuous” (p. 89; cf. Chapter 10, pp. 267-298). He relates this confession to “the message of salvation … the foundation on which the church is built” (pp. 90-91). the Church confesses that she has heard and received the Biblical testimony concerning Christ (p. 90). The Church was, in Berkouwer’s view, “led, in the matter of the boundaries of the canon, by a basic commitment centred in the gospel” (pp. 102-103 - “A true confession of Holy Scripture is possible only when one has yielded himself to the testimony of Scripture … one can never legitimately devaluate Scripture while intending to pay attention to the content of the message”). This search for Christ in the Scriptures need not lead to “distinctions between ‘center’ and ‘periphery’ in the canon in a manner which presupposes that the periphery is unimportant” (p. 90). The idea of “a reduction to the ‘canon-within-the-canon’ is fraught with the danger that the canon of Scripture will be replaced by “a canon of our own creation … a projection of our own minds” (p. 103). This danger must be carefully avoided if Christian living is not to be impoverished by a one-sided emphasis on either personal faith or social concern.

In his interpretation of the relationship between Paul and James, Berkouwer uses theological principles employed by Luther. He does not, however, reach Luther’s conclusions. Berkouwer points out that “Luther is able to speak of the sure fact that Scripture is a light clearer than sunlight … it stands in immediate relationship to saving faith, and difficulties with some words do not affect the clarity” (p. 277).

Luther emphasized the importance of the ‘Scripture alone’ principle: “We must let Scripture have the chief place and be its own truest, simplest and clearest interpreter … I want Scripture alone to rule, and not to be interpreted according to my spirit or that of any other man, but to be understood in its own light and according to its own Spirit” (A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians , (1953), p. 9 ; cited in the “Editor’s preface” from the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works, (1938), Vol. 7, pp. 97 ff.).

The relationship between Luther’s view of Scripture and his view of the epistle of James is complicated (Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, p. 130, n. 50). Luther did not regard the epistle of james as apostolic yet he did regard it as canonical. he held that the epistle of James was, compared with Paul’s epistles, “truly an epistle of straw”, yet he frequently quoted James without criticism, especially 1:18 for which he had “a special love” (p. 130, n. 50, citing J. Haar, Initium creaturae Dei, (1939), pp. 28 ff.).

The tension between Luther’s concern with “the apostolic, evangelical content of Scripture” (Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, p. 93) and his principle, “Scripture is its own interpreter” is not, in Berkouwer’s view, an insurmountable tension. he suggests that Luther’s criticisms of James reflect an “impetuous” (Faith and Justification, p. 130, n. 50) reaction to “Roman Catholic opposition … (which) emphasized the words about being justified ‘not by faith alone’” (Holy Scripture, p. 94 - Berkouwer points out that Luther “at first, in his commentary on Romans, … saw no contradiction between Paul and James (and that) he later arrived at his critical position regarding the latter” (brackets mine); cf. Luther, Lectures on Romans, (1961), pp. 100-102).

Berkouwer maintains that Calvin, who faced similar opposition, “saw a harmony in the witness of Paul and James which Luther missed” (Faith and Justification, p. 131). This harmony becomes clear when the “difficulties with some words” (Holy Scripture, p. 277) are understood in the light of luther’s principle, “let Scripture … be its own truest, simplest and clearest interpreter” (Luther’s Works, (Weimar edition), Vol. 7, pp. 97 ff.)

Berkouwer’s view of the Paul-James question is most instructive for the discussion of the evangelism-social concern polarization. he holds that “James is concerned with those who have not understood nor brought into practice the close connection between faith and works” (Faith and Justification, p. 132). He states that “on this point there is no divergence from Paul” (p. 133). Discussing James’ reference to demonic faith (2:19), he states that”the mere faith James is against is existentially aloof from its object” (p. 134) and that “this ‘merely believe’ is quite different from Paul’s ‘through faith alone’” (p. 134).

A proper understanding of the relationship between Paul and James is, in Berkouwer’s view, grounded in the recognition that Paul, in Romans 4:3, cites Genesis 15:6 - “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” - while James (2:21) begins from Genesis 22 - Abraham’s willingness to offer his son Isaac (p. 135).

Berkouwer observes the relationship between Genesis 22 and Genesis 15 in the thought of James:

“As to this ‘work’, this act of faith, James makes this surprising statement that the Scripture is therewith fulfilled, which says, ‘And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God’ (James 2:23). James too, then, quotes the text from Genesis 15 which Paul has used. But James cites it in a special connection; Genesis 15 is fulfilled in what occurs in Genesis 22. Faith and work - James sees their inter-woven congruency over the totality of life” (pp. 135-136, emphasis original).

Berkouwer contends that James’ attack on “dead faith” (p. 137, emphasis original) and his protest for faith as “a truly experienced reality” (p. 136), which dominates the whole of life, does not conflict with Paul who speaks against the works of the law but not against the works of faith.

“That this whole whole James vs. Paul affair could have arisen at all is ascribable to a failure to distinguish between works of the law and the works of faith” (p. 137).

This interpretation, which refuses to be caught on the horns of a faith-works dilemma, is of great significance for the discussion of the evangelism-social concern question. It presents a perspective in which the fullness of truth is preserved over against every tendency to misinterpret the message of the Gospel by emphasizing one aspect of the other out of its Biblical proportions.

"Faith comes by hearing" and other links

2011-12-10T12:25:00.000Z

“Faith comes by Hearing … ”

Understanding Ourselves Theologically

Understanding Christian Truth

Berkouwer on the authority of Holy Scripture

Berkouwer on Social Concern and Sanctification

A response to a comment by G. R. Osborne on Berk ouwer’s understanding of the doctrine of final perseverance

G. C. Berkouwer and the Experiential Theology of Early Dutch Calvinism

Berkouwer’s Contribution to the Ecumenical Movement

Some "Berkouwer" Links

2011-12-10T12:22:00.000Z

G. C. Berkouwer – Scholarly, Pastoral and Eva ngelical

Saved by Grace, Reaching out with Grace

Berkouwer on Social Concern and Sanctification

Our Faith is rooted in the Truth of the Gospel.

Berkouwer and Systematic Theology

Faith in Scripture as God’s Word

Understanding Christian Truth

Revelation and Reconciliation

Karl Barth and Paul Tillich: Responding to Theological Liberalism

Berkouwer and Arminius

Avoiding Mindless Fideism and Faithless Rationalism

Pride and Faith in Berkouwer’s "Studies in Dogmatics" (introduction)

Berkouwer and Barth on Universalism

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

A Little Bit about "The Triumph of Grace … " and "A Half Century … "

Links to "What are we to say about biblical criticism?" and other theological articles

2011-12-10T12:21:00.000Z

What are we to say about ‘biblical criticism’? (1)

What are we to say about ‘biblical criticism’? (2)

What are we to say about ‘biblical criticism’?” (3)

What are we to say about ‘biblical criticism’? (4)

What are we to say about ‘biblical crit icism’? (5)

I believe in the Church.

Karl Barth and Universalism: Comments from Berkouwer, Brown, Bromiley and Blo esch

Assessing G. C. Berkouwer’s Critique Of Karl Barth’s Refusal to Affirm Universal Salvation

Berkouwer on Barth’s Distinction Between Universal Election And Universal Salvation

Berkouwer and Barth on Divine Revelation

Berkouwer and Barth : Christ at the Centre

Berkouwer and Barth : The Nature of Truth

Berkouwer and Barth : The Character of Certainty

Some European Theologians

Some interesting themes in Berkouwer's theology

2011-12-10T12:10:00.000Z

In my work on Berkouwer, I focused on "the problem of polarization." Here are a few of the themes that have interested me.

(a) "his relation to Barth"

This is interesting. There are many people who don't know that much about Berkouwer. They tend to associate him with Barth because he wrote a book on Barth. This is a mistaken impression of Berkouwer. His book on Barth is a penetrating and insightful critique of Barth. Berkouwer is critical of the doctrine of election associated with Reformed scholasticism. He does not , however, replace it with the approach to election, taught by Barth.

* Writing about Berkouwer's relation to Barth can have the effect that it perpetuates the idea that Berkouwer is closely associated with Barth. Those who aren't enthusiastic about Barth's theology (even if they don't really know that much about him - except through hearsay) are not likely to read much about Berkouwer if they see his name being associated with Barth.

* Those who are so wrapped up in Barth studies may not take notice of work that concentrates more on Berkouwer rather than Barth. If they don't read very closely what's written about Berkouwer, they may continue to associate him with Barth.

* I'd love Berkouwer to get more attention for his own work and not simply as an interpreter of Barth. I think, however, that Berkouwer has received so little attention that work on him might be hardly noticed if it wasn't also work on Barth.

* Berkouwer's book on Barth ("The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth") is, in my view, an excellent book, Berkouwer's main work is "Studies in Dogmatics." The question is - Do we say, 'Forget about Barth and concentrate on Berkouwer'? or Do we take the approach that helps people to find their way to the "Studies in Dogmatics" by way of "The Triumph of Grace ... "? This second approach may attract some but it will alienate others who have been warned to avoid Barth.

(b) "his understanding of Scripture"

Berkouwer has been written off by people, who emphasize the adjective "conservative" in the label, "conservative evangelical." Very often, their negative comments seem to me to show very little understanding of Berkouwer. Even those who are, after many years, beginning to break out of a "Warfield" dominated outlook, find it difficult to go as far as saying that they share Berkouwer's view. One recent writer, while distancing himself from Warfield, has concentrated his discussion on Bavinck and Orr. I appealed to him, before publication, to give closer consideration to Berkouwer - not least because Berkouwer is much more recent than Bavinck and Orr. There is a tendency to associate Berkouwer with Rogers and McKim. While I can't say that I know a great deal about them (especially McKim) I'm not sure how helpful it is to associate Berkouwer too closely with them. Rogers translated Berkouwer's "Holy Scripture." He has also written appreciatively of Berkouwer in his book, "Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical." While these facts are significant, I think that we should take care not to associate Berkouwer too directly with the theological journey taken by Rogers in the decades that have followed his doctoral work, which was done under Berkouwer's supervision.

At the time when I was doing my PhD work, I came across the book, "Biblical Authority", which was edited by Rogers. It was a response to Harold Lindsell's book, "The Battle for the Bible." I felt that Berkouwer's work was extremely relevant to this debate. I've written a fair bit about this in my own book. I think that Berkouwer's perspective, while it may be more common now than it seemed (to me) to be back in the 1970s, is still relevant. It helps us to break free from extreme conservatism without rushing into careless liberalism. I think that his voice still needs to be heard today - not least because I'm not sure that it's really been heard all that much. One really doesn't see much reference to Berkouwer in theological books. When he is mentioned, it tends to be a conservative criticism, which doesn't show much understanding of his writings, a reference to his work on Barth which doesn't engage with his argument, or a footnote referring to one of his books because it's on the theme under consideration. In other words, I don't get the impression that many theologians have actually read that much of Berkouwer's writings.

(c) A subject, which could engage with contemporary debate, concerns the way in which Berkouwer has an existential emphasis without being an existentialist. He emphasizes that the Gospel is relevant to the entirety of our existence, but he doesn't suggest that we should follow Bultmann's demythologizing approach to understanding the Gospel. I think that this is an important distinction.

(d) In his book, "The Return of Christ", Berkouwer distinguishes between concentration and reduction. He is not a slave to literalism, but he does not de-historicize the Gospel, leaving us with no future hope. This is very relevant. Some are caught up in eschatological speculation. Berkouwer challenges them to come back to the present day. Others have got bogged down in this world. Berkouwer says to them, "There is something more than this world."

(e) The relevance of Berkouwer's work to apologetics, especially his comments in "A Half Century of Theology", is interesting. It has been said, by Bruce Demarest, that Berkouwer skilfully threads his way between "mindless fideism and faithless rationalism." It has been pointed out that Berkouwer's thought is similar to that of Blaise Pascal - "The heart has its reasons ... " The relationship between theology and philosophy is related to this. Berkouwer's work shouldn't be dismisssed as unphilosophical. I think that he challenges philosophers to have an approach which takes more account of the whole person rather than being too heavily academic.

(f) I'm not really that interested in questions like "How much continuity is there between Berkouwer and Bavinck?" or "Is Berkouwer's view of divine election in line with the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith?" I'm much more interested in whether I can hear, in Berkouwer's work, an authentic echo of the voice of Holy Scripture.

(e) Berkouwer's approach to ecumenism is very interesting. Discussion of this subject is centred on his book on "The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism." In one sense, this is historical - but it is concerned with events from Berkouwer's own lifetime rather than with figures from a more distant past. While that book is, in a sense, a commentary on a particular event from the 1960s, it opens up systematic issues with which we continue to wrestle in the 21st century. Berkouwer's book, "The Church" is also very relevant to the ecumenical discussion. The extent to which Berkouwer's work on "The Church" is relevant to our day is an interesting question. I think that there are plenty of seeds in Berkouwer's work which could be very helpfully drawn out and applied to our present situation.

More about Berkouwer (Part Two)

2011-11-29T13:48:00.000Z

Berkouwer was a prolific writer. In 1990, at the age of 86, his largest book was published, Zoeken en vinden (Seeking and Finding). In that volume Berkouwer narrated a number of memories and experiences from more than seventy years of theological endeavor. The professor of dogmatics was himself one of the main characters in this book.

In this volume, Berkouwer analyzed the struggle within the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands which led to a church split during World War II. Berkouwer was president of the GKN general synod which met off and on from 1943 until 1945 -- the synod which deposed Dr. Klaas Schilder, Dr. S. Greijdanus, and numerous other officebearers. In later years, Berkouwer gradually reached the conclusion that the successive synods held throughout those years had really backed those opposed to the synodical decisions into a corner. Looking back across the distance of several decades, Berkouwer felt that the synod at which he himself presided should have done things differently.

Berkouwer stimulated among many of his students a love for theology. A total of forty-two students obtained their doctorates under his sponsorship and guidance. From this group, several became teachers of theology themselves. In 1971 Dr. G.W. de Jong obtained his doctorate from the John Calvin Academy in Kampen with a dissertation about Berkouwer's theology.

Berkouwer was born in The Hague and raised in Zaandam, but his fame spread around the world by means of his many publications. In 1932 he obtained his
doctorate from the Free University, with a dissertation entitled Geloof en
Openbaring in de nieuwe Duitse theologie (Faith and Revelation in Recent World War and Theology, 1945), Conflict met Rome (Conflict With Rome, 1948), German Theology). In addition he wrote, among other works, Karl Barth (1936),Het probleem der Schriftkritiek (The Problem of Scripture Criticism, 1936),
Wereldoorlog en theologie (De triomf der genade in de theologie van Karl Barth (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, 1954), and Vaticaans Concilie en de nieuwe theologie (The Second Vatican Council and Recent Theology).In 1949 the first volume of his eighteen-volume Studies in Dogmatics appeared in the Netherlands.

Berkouwer was a well-known theologian beyond the Netherlands as well. A large number of his books have been translated into English and published in North America. Berkouwer participated in various international projects. In 1962, he was an observer at the Second Vatican Council in Rome.
---
From the Internet Christian Library website

More about Berkouwer (Part One)

2011-11-29T13:19:00.000Z

The Chronology of G. C. Berkouwer

1903
June 8, Born in The Hague.

He was raised in Zaandam.

1922
Began studies at Free University

1927
After completing his studies, he became first minister in Oudehorne (Friesland) from 1927 to 1931.

1931
He then became minister in Watergraafsmeer (1931-1945). (Now part of Amsterdam)

1932
In 1932 he obtained his doctorate from the Free University under Professor Hepp. His dissertation was entitled Geloof en Openbaring in de nieuwe Duitse theologie (Faith and Revelation in Recent German Theology).

1940

Berkouwer in 1940 was appointed professor at the VU in Modern Theology.

1943
One issue was the negative tone of Berkouwer's predecessor, Valentine Hepp to use his role of systematician of Reformed theology to attack two movements in the Reformed church. The first was Reformational philosophy led by D. H. Th. Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd, VU professors of philosophy and law, respectively.

The other was the in-church movement led by Klaas Schilder, against whom Hepp scored a Pyrrhic victory with Berkouwer's leading involvement as president of the GKN Council, meeting on and off between 1943 and 1945 when that Council finally forced Schilder, his colleague S. Greijdanus, and other theologians and pastors out of the denominational community along with a good number of GNK churches. These reorganized themselves as the Liberated GKN churches. Later, Berkouwer indicated regret that he had helped back the split-off group into a corner, and that some other way of handling the differences should have been found.

1945
Finished his pastorate in Amsterdam and In 1945 he became professor at the VU. His teaching was in the field of systematic theology.

1949
In 1949 the first volume of his eighteen-volume Studies in Dogmatics appeared in the Netherlands.

1957
One of Berkouwer's crowning achievements was to be delegated by the Council of the GKN to attend the 1957 assemblies of the International Council of Christian Church, a world fundamentalist body that met in Amsterdam, and the World Council of Churches, the ecumenical body that met that same year in New Delhi, India. In his report back to the GKN, Berkouwer recommended that they join the latter, and they did so, remaining active and becoming one of the first Evangelical denominations to enter the mainstream ecumenical movement.

1962
In 1962 he was an observer at the Second Vatican Council in Rome.

1973
Finished teaching at VU. A total thirty-three years had been linked to the VU.

1996
January 26, Died
----
From the Covenant Forum website

"The Work of Christ"

2011-11-26T00:26:00.001Z

The Work of Christ

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1965
Pages: 360

Defining and delineating the Work of Christ has been the concern of the church since the first century. Unfortunately, many attempts to understand that work have resulted either in wholesale rejections of theology or in complex theological jargon which, saying nearly everything, says nothing.
Professor G. C. Berkouwer avoids both these pitfalls in this volume, the ninth to appear in the American edition of his Studies in Dogmatics series. The Work of Christ treats such theologically important questions as: Would there have been an incarnation without sin? What is the relation of Christ’s humiliation and exaltation? How are we to understand the doctrine of the virgin birth? Why does the church confess that Christ suffered “under Pontius Pilate”? Following the order of the Apostle’s Creed in his study of the work of Christ, Berkouwer concludes with a lengthy discussion of four aspects of the work of Christ: reconciliation, sacrifice, obedience, and victory.
The author’s thorough treatment of the Work of Christ is reflective of his mastery of the subject matter as it has developed throughout the history of Christian thought. His historical treatment includes references to the hymns of the church, its confessions and creeds, and its preaching, in addition to its strictly theological works. Throughout, Berkouwer maintains the normative position of Scripture, never obscuring the responsibility of dogmatic theology to be subservient to the Word of God.
----

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"The Sacraments"

2011-11-26T00:25:00.002Z

The Sacraments

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1969
Pages: 308

The Sacraments is the tenth work to appear in the American edition of Berkouwer’s monumental Studies in Dogmatics. In it, the author examines, explicates and defends the Reformed teaching on the sacraments in the light of the Word of God and church theology. In the process, Berkouwer discusses and evaluates the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and various contemporary views of the sacraments.
The study proceeds to deal with the questions of: the number of the sacraments, the relation between Word and sacrament, the efficacy of the sacraments in relation to faith, the nature of Christ’s presence in the sacrament, the meaning of “sign and seal,” and the controversial questions of infant baptism and open communion. In treating these issues, Berkouwer is able to sort out the massive complications that have developed in their discussion over the years, and with devout faith and unfaltering logic, thread his way between confusion and over-simplification. The result is a brilliant statement of faith, which will illumine and inspire its readers and lay to rest much doubt and uncertainty about the significance of the vital church rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"The Person of Christ"

2011-11-26T00:25:00.000Z

The Person of Christ

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1954
Pages: 376

In the doctrine of the person of Christ-more than anywhere else, says Professor Berkouwer-do we feel that theology is not practiced in a corner, and Christ can not be made the object of a neutral interest in a scientific analysis. There will always be implicitly audible the pre-commitment of faith or unfaith, even when the theological discussion does not change to preaching.
Disclaiming the thesis of Troeltsch that the old view of Christianity and paganism is no longer valid, Berkouwer declares that what is needed today is conversion, not the simple uplift which is attached to the general promulgation of a culture. For this, the church will have to show something of the necessity which is divinely laid upon it. And for the clarification of this necessity, Berkouwer presents here an exposition of the doctrine of The Person of Christ which succeeds in making the Christian confession today as vital and relevant as it was when the infant church stormed into the world proclaiming, “He that hath not the Son of God hath not life.”
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"The Church"

2011-11-26T00:24:00.002Z

The Church

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1976
Pages: 430

“I believe one holy catholic and apostolic church.” In these words of the Nicene Creed Christians of every era and every land have articulated a dimension of their faith that seems to invite cynicism. Through the years unity and universality, holiness and faithfulness to the apostolic tradition have not been overwhelmingly obvious as attributes of the Church.
G. C. Berkouwer is not content to take the easy out and explain these shortcomings as thought what has traditionally been confessed about the Church refers only to an ideal, not the actual Church in its historical manifestations. On the contrary, Berkouwer argues, to the extent that the Church fails to display unity, catholicity, and holiness, it is failing to be itself.
Readers of Berkouwer who have come to expect penetrating analysis of a wide range of past and contemporary options, constant reference to the Bible in the outworking of a theological stance, and deep concern for the preachability of theology will not be disappointed by this vivid and thoughtful contribution to ecclesiology.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Sin"

2011-11-26T00:24:00.000Z

Sin

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1971
Pages: 600

Professor Berkouwer contends, in the light of Scripture, that there can be no meaning in the meaningless or rationality in that which is intrinsically irrational. And so, a doctrine of sin which suggests that there can be only detracts from the awfulness of sin and the magnitude of God’s forgiveness. The proper response to sin is a true confesion of my guilt; for the person who truly confesses is truly forgiven.
From this vantage point Berkouwer rejects notions of monism, dualism, and a demonological explanation for man’s sin. He wants nothing to do with a “phenomenology of evil” which sees sin as self-evident. In the light of the salvation that has come we can only speak of sins that remain in us as riddle.
Berkouwer’s view is a wholesome foil to contemporary concepts that refer to human “estrangement” or “alienation,” but have little or nothing to say about guilt. He eschews the language of causality, since “self-exculpation dogs the heels of any explanation for our sin.” He denies the concepts of realism and federalism as developed in Reformed orthodox theology. “Original sin” is no datum that is “with us,” and is certainly no “alien guilt”; much rather, it is known in our involvement in sin. Nothing, not even faith, can shed a particle of light on the truly enigmatic character of evil. God’s wrath is seen the service of his grace and not as the coordinate of his love; and precisely in his intolerance for sin the act of his mercy is revealed. In a similar way, we cannot discuss the law as the source of the knowledge of sin apart from the gospel, or the gospel apart from the law. We cannot see Adam apart from Jesus Christ.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"The Return of Christ"

2011-11-26T00:23:00.000Z

The Return of Christ

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1972
Pages: 480

Christians have always looked for the return of Christ, the last judgement, and the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth. Nevertheless, eschatology-the doctrine of last things-remains an area in which questions frequently appear to outnumber answers; and in which many of the answers that are offered come not from theologians who have studied the Bible seriously, but from faddists or self-appointed prophets. Serious students of theology, therefore, will welcome the appearance of Dr. G. C. Berkouwer’s detailed study of last things.
In The Return of Christ, Berkouwer addresses himself to a wide range of questions: How does Christian expectation differ from ordinary human longing for a better future? Is there an “intermediate state” between the death of the believer and the return of Christ (or, where does the Christian go immediately after death)? Is the Christian faith in crisis because the Lord has not yet returned? What ought Christians be doing until His return? And what will His return be like?
Speaking to issues much in evidence today, the author also provides his response to questions such as these: How are we to understand the “signs of the times”-specifically, the signs of the antichrist, the “Millennium,” and the restoration of Israel? What is the meaning of “seeing God”? Is there any scriptural warrant for teaching that ultimately God’s grace will triumph over all sin, resulting in the salvation of all men? What is the Christian really praying for when he prays “Thy Kingdom come”?
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"The Providence of God"

2011-11-26T00:22:00.000Z

The Providence of God

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1952
Pages: 284

This is the second volume to appear in the American edition of Professor Berkouwer’s Studies in Dogmatics. Like its companions, it stands independently of the series as well as forming part of a larger theological whole. Like them, too, this study of the providence of God is a fine example of Reformed theology being defended and developed through interaction with a wide range of both past and present theologies and theologians, and through a fresh look at the Biblical message.
As Professor Berkouwer says in this book, the twentieth century has seen an attack on the worth of humanity itself, with the widespread “declarations of decline” and the prominence of such words as “crisis,” “chaos,” and nihilism” mirroring the distressing situation. In such times the most obvious confession of the Church, God’s providence and His rule over all things, has become to modern man the most outmoded confession of the historic Christian Church. God’s guidance, says Professor Berkouwer, has become the problem; and he points out that some facts of experience most striking as arguments for the providence of God have now become even more convincing counter-arguments. “This is the time, says Professor Berkouwer, “in which the Church of Christ must ask herself whether she still has the courage, in profound and unshakable faith, in boundless confidence, to proclaim the Providence of God. Or is she possessed of secret doubts fed by daily events? Can she still speak of God’s rule over all things, of his holy presence in this world?…Dare she still, with eyes open to the facts of life-no less than those who from the facts conclude an imperative atheism-confess her old confession?
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Man: The Image of God"

2011-11-26T00:20:00.001Z

Man: The Image of God

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1962
Pages: 380

This is the eighth volume to appear in the American edition of Professor Berkouwer’s Studies in Dogmatics. Like its predecessors, it stands independently of the series as well as being a part of a larger theological whole. Like the other books, too, this study in theological anthropology, or the Biblical doctrine of man, is a fine example of Reformed theology being defended and developed through interaction with a wide range of both past and present theologies and theologians, and through a fresh look at the Biblical message.
The subject of the book-the nature of man-“is today, more than at any time,” writes Dr. Berkouwer, “at the center of theological and philosophical concern. The number of studies that have taken this problem as their theme is almost innumerable.” But “this almost irresistible problem appears to many a mind not to have found a clear and obviously irrefutable answer…Indeed, there is scarcely another theme dealt with by human consciousness which has aroused so much controversy as this theme-the nature of man.”
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Holy Scripture"

2011-11-26T00:19:00.000Z

Holy Scripture

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1975
Pages: 380

This thirteenth volume in the widely hailed series Studies in Dogmatics by Amsterdam theologian G. C. Berkouwer discusses the doctrine of Scripture with the catholic scope and penetrating insights into the theological issues that readers of earlier volumes have come to expect. It is a Reformed Christian doctrine of Scripture which Berkouwer articulates, but the centrality of the Bible in all Christendom and his own aversion to any form of parochialism make it impossible for him to forge his positive statement without regard to a lengthy roster of committed thinkers from time past and present. Behind these theologians, of course, stand the creeds and confessions; behind them the Bible itself, always looming large in Berkouwer’s writing-not as a reservoir of prooftexts but as a vital and refreshing stream of revealed truth which gives theology its meaning and energy.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"General Revelation"

2011-11-26T00:18:00.000Z

General Revelation

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1955
Pages: 340

The subject of God’s General Revelation has in our day aroused agitated and even violent discussions, and the time when Reformed theology could take the distinction between general and special revelation for granted appears to be gone forever, says Professor Berkouwer. Does the distinction between general and special revelation, he asks, do justice to the unique and “once-for-all” character of redemptive revelation in Jesus Christ? Does the confession of a general or universal revelation owe its existence to a flight, perhaps unconscious, from the sufficiency and absoluteness of the revelation in Christ? And, as many hold, is Christ to be regarded as but a special illustration of the general revelation of God in the world, a revelation richer and broader than that revelation in Christ? These decisive questions, involving as they do the claims of natural theology and the radical character of the history of religion since the nineteenth century, are given here a trenchant and detailed analysis. The thoroughness with which Professor Berkouwer brings up-to-date the history of discussions affecting this important subject, distinguishing so comprehensively the various interpretations at issue, gives this book a special value to all students of theology.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Faith and Sanctification"

2011-11-26T00:17:00.000Z

Faith and Sanctification

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1952
Pages: 196

Faith and Sanctification is the first volume to appear in the First American Edition of a series of monographs covering the whole field of Christian theology. This major contribution to the current literature of theology, destined to exert its influence within the main current of American religious thought, it the work of Prof. G. C Berkouwer, occupant of the Chair of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands-a country with a long tradition for great theologians. In his ambitious series, Prof. Berkouwer easily keeps the tradition alive. The translation of his books for American readers marks an important literary event. In this volume Professor Berkouwer sets forth the gravity of the Christian’s responsibility: “For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was anything made secret, but that it should come to light”-that gives it its peculiar character. Faith and Sanctification is an excellent introduction of Berkouwer to American readers.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Faith and Perseverance"

2011-11-26T00:16:00.000Z

Faith and Perseverance

Author: G. C. Berkouwer

Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1958
Pages: 260

In times when men’s hearts are failing them for fear, in the midst of change and transition, in a period when many voices are clamoring for a hearing, the esteemed Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam aptly commences his penetrating study by drawing attention to the timeliness and relevance of the doctrine of perseverance. He writes, “There is something very strange about this doctrine, something which confronts us with the problem of permanence in a unique way, because we are so conscious of our own changelessness. Our lives are subject to numberless variations and fluctuations. In the doctrine of perseverance of the saints do we not have merely the projection of human desires, a hope which flies in the face of life’s realities? Does it not grasp after something that is denied us as changeable men?
The thoroughness with which Professor Berkouwer brings up-to-date the history of the discussions affecting this important subject (from the days of Tertullian and Augustine, through the Reformers, Ritschl, and Schleiermacher, down to Edmund Schlink and Karl Barth) gives this book a special value to all students of theology.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Faith and Justification"

2011-11-26T00:14:00.001Z

Faith and Justification

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1954
Pages: 208

In this present volume, the third in English translation of Dr. G. C. Berkouwer’s ambitious series, Studies in Dogmatics, the author continues his brilliant and much-needed project of bringing up to date the discussions of the great Reformed faith, and of making this faith relevant to the present-day crisis of human certainties.
Concerned with Luther’s great doctrine of Justification by Faith, Professor Berkouwer includes in his study the theories of both the dialectical and Roman Catholic theologians, as well as the developments in the so-called Luther renaissance. He discusses in turn the theories of Luther and Calvin, Bohl, Osiander and Newman, Kohlbrugge and Kuyper, and Barth and Brunner, and weighs all that is relevant to the way of salvation. Berkouwer does not search primarily for a logical synthesis, and a finished proposition. He is rather concerned with the living relationship between God and man, depending upon attentiveness to the Word of revelation for the purity and clarity, as well as the relevance, of this study. Like the other studies already published in this series, this book is reasoned, penetrating, and carries forward the great vitality of the Reformation.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

"Divine Election"

2011-11-26T00:13:00.000Z

Divine Election

Author: G. C. Berkouwer
Publisher: Eerdmans
Publication Date: 1960
Pages: 340

G. C. Berkouwer’s Divine Election is a discussion of election in a perspective and spirit that will be quite novel to most theologians and ministers. Berkouwer contends that election can be understood only within faith, and within a spirit of doxology, for election takes place ‘in Christ.’ Hence election must be understood and employed in terms of the gospel. He then repudiates theological usage which employs election and reprobation as a principle of interpretation for theology with the usual consequence of deducing from this truth a nice logical system of theology. Another powerful feature of this book is its criticism of the conception of the sovereignty of God which abstracts it from the whole truth about God and then make it into a mere principle of naked, ‘absolute power,’ an ethically neutral principle of brute force. Berkouwer’s book is at once a most forceful theological presentation and a work of genuine piety.
---

From the "Logos Bible Software" website

Links to "Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer" (Parts One to Nine)

2011-11-25T22:30:00.000Z

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part One)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Two)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Three)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Four)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Five)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Six)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Seven)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Part Eight)

Universal Election And Universal Salvation: A Discussion Of The Views Of Karl Barth And G. C. Berkouwer (Page Nine)

Warfield and Berkouwer: The Evangelical Attitude toward the Bible

2011-11-19T00:34:00.000Z

On the differences between Warfield and Berkouwer, P. Rees speaks wisely, “is it not right to say that there is a difference between the evangelical attitude toward the Bible and an evangelical’s views about the Bible? Go back to Warfield and Berkouwer. Their views of how to construe the Bible’s matchless revelatory quality and authority are not precisely the same… But their attitude toward the Bible is identical – God’s Word that shines in our darkness, the unerring pointer to the One ‘who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven…” (Biblical Authority, edited by J Rogers, p. 13, emphasis original).

The difference between Berkouwer and Warfield lies not at the point of emphasizing the unbreakable connection between origin and authority but at the point at which divine and human activity are related to each other.

Both Berkouwer and Warfield emphasize the divinity and the humanity of the Scriptures.

Their differing interpretations of the relationship between Scripture’s divine and human aspects are closely related to their differing interpretations of the boundaries set by Scripture for theological reflection.

The decisive question for Berkouwer as well as Young and Warfield is this: What does the Bible teach? In discussing their views, it is important to emphasize that differences in precise interpretation should not be permitted to obscure the shared concern with affirming Biblical authority.

Berkouwer and Barth : The Character of Certainty

2011-11-01T18:13:00.002Z

Certainty is concerned with knowing and is, therefore, closely related to truth. One can only know when the truth has been made known to one.

For Barth, God’s “Yes” is the all-important decision (Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (TG), pp. 30. 33). God’s gracious affirmation of sinful man is precisely the content of the doctrine of election. This understanding of election leads him to adopt the highly speculative concept of the ontological impossibility of unbelief (Berkouwer, TG, p. 266, citing Kirchliche Dogmatik (KD), Vol. IV, 1, p. 835).

Thus, he teaches that the unbeliever is one who does not yet know that he has been redeemed by Christ. The believer knows he has been redeemed and the unbeliever does not (Berkouwer, TG, pp. 264-265. See also C Brown, Karl Barth and the Christian Message (KB), p. 137, n. 8).

This antithesis between believers and unbelievers as those who know and those who do not yet know fails to do justice to the Biblical emphasis on the absolute necessity of faith if men are to pass from death to life (In TG, p. 257, commenting on Ephesians 2, Berkouwer makes some helpful observations concerning the importance of the change which takes place in man’s relationship to God at the point of his conversion).

Barth’s view of certainty – despite his emphasis on the work of the Spirit – tends to confuse knowledge and faith. A lack of knowledge is different from a lack of faith. The unbeliever’s problem is not that he does not know that his eternal destiny has already been established according to the “Yes” of God’s grace. Rather, it is that he has not believed in Christ, through whom eternal salvation is received by faith.

This distinction between knowledge and faith does not mean that knowledge and faith are unrelated. Certainty must be related to the facts made known in the Gospel, the making-known of the salvation of God (Berkouwer, TG, p. 276). This making-known is not, however, the proclamation of a decision which has already been taken by God for every man. Rather, it is the making-known of God’s salvation which is to be received by faith. Thus making-known is “full of exhortation to faith” (Berkouwer, TG, p. 276, emphasis original). The idea that some know while others do not know about an a priori and identical decision taken with respect to both tends to reduce the proclamation of the Gospel to “a giving of ‘information’ about a given state of affairs” (Berkouwer, TG, p. 275, emphasis original. Taking note of Barth’s conception of the ‘open situation’ of preaching (TG, pp. 275-276), Berkouwer contends that this conception is an inadequate attempt to lessen the tensions inherent within Barth’s theology (TG, p. 296).

Barth acknowledges that the certainty into which the Gospel invites men to come is the assurance of faith and that the knowledge which the believer possesses is the experiential knowledge of the God of our salvation.

The problem arises when these emphases are placed within the ontic structure of his theology. The noetic aspect – man’s knowledge of God is grounded in the ontic aspect – God’s determination of man’s nature as “an essence unchanged and unchangeable by sin” (Barth, KD, Vol. III, 2, pp. 43-50, 54-55, cited in Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, p. 91, reference given in n. 54) – is understood in such a way that the Biblical call for conversion appears to be reduced to a call to man to recognize what he already is.

This critique of the ontic structure of Barth’s view of certainty should not, because of its emphasis on human responsibility, be construed as suggesting that faith itself provides the basis for Christian assurance. The believer’s assurance finds its true foundation in Christ alone.

Barth correctly observes this when he writes, “On principle, we literally cannot assign any other definition of content to the new existence of men convinced by God Himself than that they know, and that they cannot and do not want to know, anything else except that they are in Christ, by Christ” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 240).

The point at issue is not here. It is agreed that the believer’s experience of assurance, produced by God Himself, is precisely the knowledge that he is in Christ. The point at issue arises when Barth objectifies and universalizes the term “in Christ” in his explanation of the above passage: “’In Christ’ means that in Him we are reconciled to God, in Him we are elect from eternity, in Him we are called, in Him we are justified and sanctified, in Him our sin is carried to the grave, in His resurrection our death is overcome, with Him our life is hid in God” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 240).

Barth’s emphasis on “in Him” is entirely correct. His position becomes more complicated when he continues, “in Him everything that has to be done for us, to us, and by us, has already been done” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 240). The complication increases as Barth progresses from “for us” to “in us” and then on to “by us”. His Christ-centredness is admirable yet one wonders whether Barth’s particular interpretation of the centrality of Christ has not led to a devaluing of historical experience and human responsibility. The complexity of Barth’s view is increased when he identifies “us” as the whole of mankind (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 238).

In his understanding of the “subjective aspect” of Christian assurance, Barth rightly places the emphasis on “men convinced by God” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 240). This noetic aspect of being convinced by God is rightly described as the subjective aspect since Christian assurance is objectively grounded in Christ rather than man’s experience, understood apart from Christ. The ontic structure of Barth’s theology is such that it might be inferred that certainty can be deduced from what “has already been done” for us, to us and by us (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 240. Despite Barth’s intention to point to Christ and to honour the Spirit, these emphases could lead to “a false and dangerous optimism” (C Brown, KB, p. 137) which fails to place adequate emphasis on what must be done for us – forgiveness, to us – regeneration, and by us – faith.

When we speak of personal salvation, we speak of both God’s action in Christ and our faith. The two belong together, They are not to be set over against each other. Our salvation has its foundation in Christ alone without diminishing the absolute necessity of faith for the reception of salvation.

The character of certainty must be understood in connection with this salvation. It is a salvation which comes from God. This is the foundation of our assurance. It is a salvation which is received by faith. This is the way in which we come to enjoy this assurance.

Berkouwer on Barth’s Distinction Between Universal Election And Universal Salvation

2011-11-01T18:13:00.001Z

Some people are impressed by Barth’s distinction between universal election and universal salvation. They defend his position. Some have been influenced by Barth and have become universalists. Berkouwer’s view was that our critique of Barth must begin with looking closely at his teaching concerning universal election.
* By speaking of the idea of the depth-aspect of salvation, Berkouwer distances himself from double predestination.
* In his critique of Barth, Berkouwer distances himself from universal salvation.
* With such a strong emphasis on both grace and faith, Berkouwer guards against any suggestion that, by our faith, we contribute anything to our salvation. It is always God’s free gift, and all the glory belongs to Him.
I think that the distinctive feature of Berkouwer’s teaching is that he emphasizes that everything we say about God’s salvation is said from within the experience of having been saved by grace through faith.
We have heard the Good News - “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). We have been given God’s gracious promise: “Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21). We have taken Jesus at His Word: “he who comes to Me will never be cast out” (John 6:37).
* There is nothing in this joyful declaration of Good News that leaves us wondering whether the idea of double predestination should leave us in doubt about whether the words, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” are really words for ourselves.
* There is nothing in the call to come in faith to Jesus Christ our Saviour which gives us encouragement to think in terms of universal salvation.
* There is nothing in God’s description of each and every one of us as “sinners” which suggests that we could ever save ourselves. We do not come to the Lord Jesus as Pharisees who take pride in our morality and our religion. We come to Him as sinners. We pray, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”, and we are “justified” (Luke 18: 13-14).

Assessing G. C. Berkouwer’s Critique Of Karl Barth’s Refusal to Affirm Universal Salvation

2011-11-01T18:13:00.000Z

In his book, “The Knowledge of the Holy” (a book on the Attributes of God in the Christian Life), A. W. Tozer spoke about an ocean liner travelling across the Atlantic from Liverpool to New York. The destination has been set for the ship’s journey. The travellers can do as they wish while they are on the ship, but they cannot change the ship’s destination.
Barth’s understanding of election would seem to be that everyone of us is already on the ship. We can, however, jump overboard! The problem with Barth’s refusal to affirm universal salvation (allowing for the possibility of “jumping overboard”) is that it is difficult to make sense of this when Barth is also speaking to us about “the ontological possibility of unbelief” (i.e. nothing changes the fact that we are elect - “the truth is that he is a child of God from eternity even when he is not in the truth” (CD, 1, 2, 238)). My problem with this way of speaking about being a child of God is that it is not what I find in John 1:12-13, where we read about receiving Christ as Saviour and being born of God. This suggests that, prior to receiving Christ as Saviour, we were not born of God. Those who do not receive Christ as Saviour have not been born of God.
Barth was not happy with the idea that we choose to come on board. He emphasized that it is not our decision which determines our eternal destiny.
Barth speaks of ‘the eternal destruction’ of those who do not believe that they are God’s children from eternity (CD Vol I/2, 238).” We may ask the question, ‘On what basis are those who are God’s children from eternity to be committed to eternal destruction?” Asking the question, “Is it on the basis of the raising and answering of the question of our destiny at a different point from the Son of God’s assumption of humanity (238)”, we note that Barth answers this question in the negative.
Barth speaks of “the eternal destruction” of those who have been God’s children from eternity. This raises precisely the question which you, Scott, raised in an earlier comment - Is there not a weakening of the idea of election here?
* Barth’s refusal to move from universal election to universal salvation has been received favourably by some. Bettis insists that “Barth’s rejection of universalism is consistent with his … strong and clear intention of refusing to identify the love of God with a cosmic plan of redemption and with refusing to identify the gospel with information about that plan” (”Is Karl Barth a Universalist?”, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1967, pp. 435-436, accompanied by footnote (n. 1) to CD, Vol. II, 2, pp.76-93). Barth’s emphasis on the freedom of God as a way of avoiding universal salvation
raises the question, “What kind of freedom is this?” On the one hand, he is strongly proclaiming the grace of God - all are elect in Christ. On the other hand, God is free to withdraw the gift of salvation. What kind of freedom is this? It seems to me to be a freedom to be ungracious. Barth is concerned that we do not take salvation into our own hands. He says that our salvation is in God’s hands. When, however, he says that we can take ourselves out of God’s salvation, it is difficult to make sense of what he tells us about universal election.
* There are others who are impressed by Barth’s teaching that all are elect in Christ. Unlike Barth, however, they do not hesitate to affirm universal salvation - Bettis rightly points out that Barth’s rejection of universalism is consistent with his clear intention of refusing to identify the Gospel with a cosmic plan of redemption and the Gospel with information about that plan. He writes, “Barth rejects universalism because the premise of its argument is that God’s love is good because it saves men” (p. 436). A universalist might, however, contend that the effect (“it saves men”) is grounded in the cause (“God’s love is good”) and is not seen as the factor which determines his view of God’s love. A universalist might even state that Barth has been a formative influence on his doctrine of God!
* Alongside these two views - (a) going with Barth on both his affirmation of universal election and his refusal to commit himself to universal salvation; and (b) moving on from Barth’s universal election to affirm universal salvation, there is Berkouwer’s word of caution. He writes, “it is extremely dangerous to think and talk about ‘the love of God’ and what ‘follows’ from it outside of the gospel” (The Return of Christ (RC), p. 422). He insists that “the tender mercy of God … is not the point of departure for logical conclusions on our part” (RC, p. 423). He resists “the persistent and almost irresistible inclination to go outside the proclamation of the gospel to find a deeper gnosis, whether in the form of certain knowledge or only as a surmise”, insisting that there is “only one ‘necessity’ … ‘Necessity … is laid upon me. Woe to me, if I do not preach the gospel!’ (1 Cor. 9:16)” (RC, p. 423). He stresses that the Gospel’s answer to the question of the number of the saved is found in Jesus’ words: “Strive to enter by the narrow door” (Luke 13:24).
—–
In offering these words of caution, Berkouwer is distancing himself from the idea that all are elect in Christ. He insists that we must not objectify election in an illegitimate manner. He emphasizes that the believer can see himself, by faith, as elect. To separate election from the believer’s confession of faith, arising from his experience of grace, is quite unwarranted. Any theoretical interpretation of election is the result of speculating beyond the believing confession of one’s own election. It should be pointed out that this does not make election subjective. It does, however, recognize that the objectivity of grace is not known apart from our subjective experience.
—–
There are some who have not begun the journey into eternal life. If they continue on their present pathway, they are not travelling in the direction of the heavenly destination. In one sense, Barth is correct in directing our attention away from our own decision of faith to Jesus Christ, our Saviour. For every one of us, the journey towards the heavenly destination begins with the fact that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). We must, however, also point out that we are not saved if we refuse to put our faith in Him.
- The time when salvation was provided for us was the time when Christ died for us. When He declared from the Cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He was declaring that He had done what needed to be done for sinners to be saved.
- The time when salvation is received by us is the time at which we come, in faith, to the Saviour. This, says Jesus, is the time when we pass from death - “the wages of sin is death” - to life - “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (John 5:24; Romans 6:23).
—–
When Berkouwer warns us that we must not separate election from the believer’s confession of faith, arising from his experience of grace, his words are directed against (a) a universal election of the kind taught by Barth (and the universal salvation which has often been taught by taught by those who have seen themselves as building on Barth’s theology); and (b) a particular election, which objectifies the biblical expression, “before the foundation of the world”, in a way that threatens to make our human experience meaningless.
Berkouwer’s concept of the depth-aspect of salvation is very important. He is not teaching that all are elect. He is not teaching that all will be saved. He is teaching that we are saved by grace through faith. By distancing himself from a particular election, which is dissociated from our human response to the Gospel, he is not suggesting that there are many people for whom faith is not a real possibility. By distancing himself from Barth’s universal election, he has not been drawn into speaking, as Barth did, of “the ontological impossibility of unbelief.”
—–
Barth was reacting against the Calvinism associated with a particular election and a double predestination. Berkouwer has not followed Barth in his reinterpretation of Calvinism. He has not, however, left us in the same place. Berkouwer has something to say to (a) the Calvinism against which Barth reacted; and (b) Barth and his followers. To both, he says, “We need to listen carefully to what God is saying to us in His Word. We need to take care that, in our preaching of the Gospel, that we remain faithful to all that God is saying to us in His Word.

Berkouwer and Barth : Christ at the Centre

2011-11-01T18:12:00.001Z

For Barth, Christ is the key to understanding our human life. If Christ, God’s revelation, is taken away, man is thrown into an abyss of meaninglessness. Man cannot, by himself, bring meaning to his life. Christ alone can reveal to man the meaning of his life. This insight lies at the heart of Barth’s radical distinction between religion and revelation (Church Dogmatics (CD), Vol. I, 2, Section 17, “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religion”, pp. 280-361). Religion is anthropocentric. Revelation is Christocentric. Religion is man’s attempt to impose meaning on a meaningless existence. Revelation is God’s way of showing to man the meaning of his existence.

Berkouwer agrees with Barth’s affirmation that Christ is the key to understanding our life. It is only in Christ that the meaning of our life can be properly understood (General Revelation (GR), Chapter VI, “The Nature Psalms”, pp.117-134). Without Christ, man gropes in the darkness. Even man’s religion is, without Christ, a groping in the darkness, a groping after the light of the world (GR, Chapter VII, “Revelation and Knowledge”, pp. 137-172). There is, however, an important difference between Berkouwer and Barth. This difference revolves around the distinction between noetic and ontic thinking (Man: The Image of God (Man), pp. 96-97),

In his discussion of the relation of anthropology to Christology, Berkouwer makes an important contribution to the understanding of the difficult distinction between ontic and noetic thinking. He contrasts the ontic thinking of Barth with the noetic thinking of Calvin and Bavinck (Man, pp. 87-98). Each of these theologians bases anthropology on Christology (Man, pp. 87-89 - Calvin and Bavinck, pp. 89-96 – Barth, pp. 96-98 – comparison of the two approaches). There is, however, an important difference between Barth’s use of Christology and that of Calvin and Bavinck.

Barth’s method is derived “from the idea that we cannot understand ‘man’ apart from his relation to God” (Man, p. 93), In Berkouwer’s view, this position is “unassailable” (Man, p. 93). Barth’s view is described thus by Berkouwer: “”Man’s being, man’s nature, is to stand in grace, God’s grace; this is the truth we discern in the election of the man Jesus Immanuel (God with us) … his essence is to be an object of God’s grace. This essence is indeed covered and hidden by sin, but how can something which has its basis in God’s grace be wholly destroyed? There is and remains a ‘continuum, an essence unchanged and unchangeable by sin’” (Man, p. 91, citing Kirchliche Dogmatik (KD), Vol. III, 2, pp.43-50, 54-55 as a general reference). The ontic element in Barth’s view is found in this emphasis on “an essence unchanged and unchallenged by sin (cited in Man, p. 91).

At this point, Barth’s approach differs from that of Calvin and Bavinck. They approach the image of God in man via the renewal of that image through Christ (Man, p. 96). This renewal takes place in the context of “man’s fall through guilt” (Man, p. 97) as man enters into “communion with Christ” (Man, p. 98) “through faith” (Man, p. 101). This renewal “has nothing to do with a ‘natural’ state of affairs in the relation between God and man, but rather shows forth the wonder of the new birth … through which the life of the creature can once more exhibit God’s image” (Man, p. 102. Berkouwer places inverted commas round the word ‘natural’ to indicate that he is not implying that Barth teaches salvation by nature rather than by grace. He uses the word ‘natural’ to raise pointedly the question whether the way in which Barth emphasizes salvation by grace provides a proper perspective concerning the “through faith” (Ephesians 2:8) context in which the divine salvation reaches man.).

Barth’s idea that this renewal has taken place in ‘mankind’ by virtue of the incarnation has led R Prenter to describe Barth’s position as “creation docetism” (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (TG), p. 25; source given by Berkouwer at p. 250, n. 68). While acknowledging Barth’s intention to emphasize the unbreakable unity of creation and reconciliation (TG, p. 250, emphasis original), Berkouwer recognizes the validity of Prenter’s criticism of Barth (TG, p. 250). Berkouwer is concerned that the decisiveness of history is not endangered (TG, p. 250).

Emphasizing “not the ontic qualities of man, but what he does with these qualities” (Man, p. 56, emphasis original), Berkouwer remarks critically that “Barth is concerned not only with a noetic problem … but also with an ontic problem” (Man, p. 96; see also TG, p. 54). He notes that Barth speaks of faith as an “objective, real, ontological inevitability for all, for every man” and of unbelief as “an objective, real ontological impossibility” (KD, Vol. IV, 1, p. 835; cited in TG, p.266, emphasis in Berkouwer).

Berkouwer observes that Barth’s notions of the ontological inevitability of faith and the ontological impossibility of unbelief are grounded Christologically in his view of God’s election (TG, Chapter IV, “The Triumph of Election”, pp. 89-122).

While objecting strongly to the concept of objectivity implicit in such conceptions, Berkouwer does not intend to lead theology towards a subjectivized understanding of divine grace. Rather, he seeks to understand objectivity and subjectivity not as polar opposites but as inter-related elements which are harmonized in a proper understanding of the relationship between grace and faith.

In his criticism of the ontic thinking undergirding Barth’s theology, Berkouwer commends Barth for his concentration on Jesu Christ which gives his theology a “triumphant and joyful character (which) did not arise from a superficially optimistic attitude to life” (TG, p. 212. This is borne out by Barth’s preference for the phrase, “Jesus is Victor” rather than the expression, “the triumph of grace”, CD, Vol. IV, 3, pp. 173-180).

Berkouwer, whose own theology is thoroughly Christocentric (Man, p. 107. The centrality of Christology in Berkouwer’s thought is observable throughout his “Studies in Dogmatics”. His theology is no less Christocentric than Barth’s, though he uses Christology differently from Barth.), suggests that Barth’s use of Christology has become highly speculative (TG, p. 222).

In his insistence that the significance of history must not be devalued (TG, pp. 250, 256. By questioning the capacity of Barth’s theology to ascribe decisive significance to history, Berkouwer does not “wish to accuse Barth of being guilty of subscribing to a consistently idealistic conception of history in which history serves only to illustrate an eternal idea” (TG, pp. 256-257, emphasis original), Berkouwer is not suggesting that human sin should be taken more seriously than divine grace (see also J Jocz, The Covenant: A Theology of Human Destiny, p. 217). Rather, he seeks to elucidate the precise nature of the relationship between divine grace and human sin.

Concerning divine grace, Berkouwer writes, “there can never be a question of too strongly accenting the grace of God. Rather the question is, how shall we lay the proper emphases and how can we most purely praise this grace. It is never the full accent but the wrong accent that obscures the gospel of God’s grace” (TG, p. 349, emphasis original).

He rejects both “an accentuation of the grace of God in such a manner that this grace hardly seems to be other than a deterministic casual system” and an interpretation which pleads “for human freedom and for the significance of human decisions only to end in synergism” (TG, p. 349).

Insisting that the Gospel comes to man in contexts of “calling and invitation, of proclamation and admonition”, Berkouwer maintains that “It is not possible to speak meaningfully about God’s grace in Jesus Christ outside of these contexts” (TG, p. 369).

Emphasizing that “This context is unable to function, however, when the gospel is overshadowed by an objective message about election which bears no vital relationship to the proclamation” (TG, pp. 369-370), he insists that “When we have a proper regard for Jesus Christ as He is revealed to us in Scripture, no conclusions are possible or warranted which are drawn outside of faith” (TG, p. 368. Berkouwer is concerned to emphasize the unbreakable bond between reality and relation (see Man, p. 35). It is the reality of God’s salvation that is known in the relation of faith. It is precisely in this relation that this reality is known.).

The problem which is raised by Berkouwer’s rejection of Barth’s ontic approach is whether he has not retreated into a kind of dualism which contains no real perspective concerning the sovereignty of God over the whole of reality.

Aware of this difficulty, Berkouwer insists that “The New Testament … does not speak less but rather differently about the vanquishing of the demons than Barth does” (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (TG), p. 371, emphasis original).

He emphasizes that “The problem of how rightly to evaluate the power of the demonic host can never be solved abstractly and theoretically. It can be resolved only in Christ, in faith, love and prayer” (TG, p. 378, emphasis original).

(At this point I made more comments on the phrase “in Christ”. Feeling that they would break up the flow of this article, I have posted them separately – as an ‘appendix’ to this post.)

According to Berkouwer, “the triumph of grace … transcends any possibility of human usurpation” (TG, p. 382, emphasis mine). He emphasizes that “in the triumph of the kingdom all human self-elevation, all phariseeism, can only be radically condemned” (TG, p. 382, emphasis original).

The sovereignty of God over the whole of reality may be viewed as the demonstration that salvation is salvation in God’s way – by grace through faith. When salvation in God’s way – by grace through faith – is properly understood, the believer understands that the sovereignty of God's grace "is the victory about which we cannot speak abstractly, but only in terms of the conquest of our own rebellious hearts" (TG, p. 383, emphasis mine).

This view does not represent a retreat from the sovereignty of God over the whole of reality to the sovereignty of God within the heart of the believer. Rather, it represents the sovereignty of God over man. God's way of salvation - by grace through faith - is vindicated over against man’s attempt at achieving salvation through his own works.

This view of God’s gracious sovereignty over the whole of reality does not require us to posit either the inevitability or the probability of universal reconciliation (I have some other comments which I will post as a second ‘appendix’ to this post.) Rather, it maintains that reconciliation is God’s work, accomplished in God’s way. Thus, the emphasis is placed on the Biblical proclamation of salvation by grace through faith rather than the more speculative idea of universal reconciliation.

When the integral relation between grace and faith is upheld against every tendency to see grace and faith as competitors, theology will “not permit itself to use a ‘principle’ (that of the sola gratia) as a point of departure for all manner of deductions” (TG, p. 274, brackets original). Rather, it will be “guided by the message of the Scriptures … that called urgently to faith and warned against unbelief” (TG, p. 294).

Berkouwer and Barth on Divine Revelation

2011-11-01T18:12:00.000Z

The Question of "Christomonism"

An important question in the assessment of Barth's theology revolves around his view of the relationship between natural theology and general revelation,
Discussing "Karl Barth's Offensive Against Natural Theology" (General Revelation (GR), Chapter II, pp. 21-33), Berkouwer notes that "Barth's conception of revelation ... is frequently called 'Christomonism' " (GR,p. 25). Here, we have the central issue in the interpretation of Barth's Christocentric theology. Should it be described as Christomonism? Is there an unnecessary wresting of doctrines out of their Biblical context in order to fit a particular Christology? In discussing this matter we should proceed with caution. Concerning the suggestion that Barth's theology should be described as Christomonism, G. W. Bromiley writes, "this falls rather wide of the mark in view of the ultimate Trinitarianism of the Dogmatics" ("Karl Barth" in P. E. Hughes (ed.), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology). Despite this caution, Bromiley holds that there is a sense in which Barth's theology can be described as "Christomonism".
Asking "whether a Christian theologian may do anything but think of 'Christ only' ", Berkouwer observes that Barth's "only motive has been to hold fast at all costs to the Christological thread throughout" (GR, p. 25).
Berkouwer maintains that "it does appear that this 'Christ only' of Barth is given so special a form that it can rightly be called a Christomonism" (GR, p. 25). A similar conclusion is reached by Colin Brown (Karl Barth and the Christian Message, pp. 12, 149-150).
In seeking to understand Berkouwer's critique of Barth's theology, we should note that he does not disagree with Barth's emphasis on the absolute importance of Christology for Christian theology. Like Barth, he upholds the ideal of a Christ-centred theology. He does, however, disagree with Barth's particular use of Christology. It is Barth's particular interpretation of a Christ-centred theology with which Berkouwer takes issue.

Natural Theology and General Revelation

Barth proposes three reasons for the persistence of natural theology (Church Dogmatics, Vol. II, 1, pp. 85-126. The three reasons are succinctly stated by G W Bromiley: "(a) It is thought to be possible and practicable ... (b) It is thought to be pedagogically useful at least as an introduction to theology ... (c) It is thought to have a biblical sanction in that strand of scripture which appeals to man's confirming witness with creation" (Historical Theology: An Introduction, p. 426).
Finding these reasons inadequate, Barth proceeds to specify man's pride as the real reason for its persistence. Holding that God can be known only through Christ, he insists that natural theology is "nothing else but the justification of the natural man" (Berkouwer, General Revelation (GR, p. 27). For a short account of Barth's protest against natural theology in relation to the theology of Emil Brunner, see T H L Parker, Karl Barth, pp. 96-99).
While agreeing with Barth's opposition to natural theology, Berkouwer criticizes the manner in which he has opposed natural theology. He draws a clear distinction between natural theology and general revelation (GR, p. 15). He asks whether there is an indissoluble unity between general revelation and natural theology.
Following his discussion of Barth's attack on natural theology (GR, pp. 21-33), Berkouwer discusses the reaction to Barth's to Barth's attack on natural theology (GR, pp. 37-57).
Concerning himself chiefly with with the views of Emil Brunner and Paul Althaus, he points out where he agrees and disagrees with each them.
If Berkouwer's critique of Barth is to be properly understood, it requires to be carefully distinguished from the views of Brunner and Althaus. His critique of Barth is based on a clear distinction between general revelation and natural theology (GR, p. 153, following Calvin), He holds that neither Brunner (GR, pp. 44-46) nor Althaus (GR, pp. 50-51) make this distinction sufficiently clear.
Berkouwer does not only speak of the weakness of the protest against Barth's position issued by Brunner and Althaus. He also points out that "they have nevertheless emphasized some questions which theology may not and cannotneglect" (GR, p. 52). To dismiss these questions with a protest against both natural theology and general revelation is, in Berkouwer's view, quite unsatisfactory.
Berkouwer observes that "Barth has centered his attack more and more upon natural theology as the great enemy of the faith, and general revelation was always involved in this attack as well" (GR, p. 21, emphasis original).
This interpretation of Barth has been contested by G W Bromiley: "His rejection of natural theology applies strictly to natural theology, not to natural revelation" (Historical Theology: An Introduction, p. 436). It should, however, be pointed out that Bromiley has also spoken of Barth's "failure to make a clear distinction between natural revelation and natural theology" "Karl Barth" in P E Hughes (ed.), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology (CT), p. 55).
In the interpretation of these contrasting statements from Bromiley, we should, perhaps, highlight his use of the word "strictly" in the first of these statements. He explains his position thus: "when it is seen that Barth's reference is to the natural theology of fallen man, and that he does not deny that there may be partial lights and words and truths even outside special revelation, it is hard to maintain that he is not basically right in his understanding, that he does not give a more correct account of, for example, Romans 1-2 (as well as 1 Corinthians 1) than many who try to see here a foundation of knowledge rather than of guilt, and that his examination of natural theology is not among the most acute and helpful in this whole area" (CT, p. 56).
While accepting the general thrust of Bromiley's evaluation of Barth's protest against natural theology, it should be pointed out that it is not a matter of choosing between a theology which fails to make a clear distinction between natural theology and natural revelation and a theology which relates Romans 1-2 to knowledge rather than guilt.
Berkouwer presents another option which exposes the falseness of such a dilemma. He proposes an emphatic affirmation of general revelation and an equally emphatic rejection of natural theology.
This distinction between natural theology and general revelation and the critique of the way in which Barth opposes natural theology is based on a further distinction between revelation and the knowledge of revelation (Berkouwer, GR, p. 57. See also Chapter VII, "Revelation and Knowledge" (pp. 137-172).
The Knowledge of Revelation

Knowledge of revelation is, according to Berkouwer, arrived at not through natural theology but through experience of the salvation of God “that opens doors and windows towards God’s handiwork” (General Revelation (GR), p. 131).

With this emphasis on the salvation of |God as the way of understanding general revelation, Berkouwer opposes natural theology no less emphatically than Barth. He contends that man is unable to escape the revelation of God in creation (GR, pp. 147-148), which is a real revelation and is not read into the created world by the believer (GR, p. 132).

The objective reality of God’s revelation in creation renders man guilty (GR, pp. 150-151). It does not provide a way of salvation. The removal of guilt comes through Christ’s salvation.

In Berkouwer’s view, general revelation does not give man “a disposition to believe” (GR, p. 169), Thus, Berkouwer’s “No!” to natural theology is no less pronounced than Barth’s since both hold that “man in all his endeavors stands under the condemnation of the radical No of the true and living God, the No of his holy judgment in the presence of which man cannot live, but only die” (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of G C Berkouwer, p. 27. For a discussion of Barth’s response to this book, see my post, “The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth” - follow link to Barth on the list of topics).

In his exclusion of natural theology, Berkouwer emphasizes “the radicality of sin” (Man: The Image of God, p. 142), stressing that “being a sinner is not a peripheral and relative thing” (Man … , p. 143) and that “There is no way for man to escape this condition of being lost … The lost can only be sought and found” (Man … , p. 143, emphasis original).

He insists that man has no power to begin by himself any change in spiritual things (Man … , pp. 131-132, emphasis original). The radicality of man’s sin is broken down “only when the Holy Spirit convinces the individual of sin and righteousness and judgment” (Man … , p. 146). Man’s sin and guilt are overcome only through the saving grace of God in Christ.

Since both Berkouwer and Barth affirm God’s No to man in his sin, it is clear that their disagreement regarding general revelation is not essentially anthropological. Holding that man cannot save himself and that Christ alone is man’s Saviour, both reject natural theology. Both are undoubtedly Christocentric in their theology. The difference arises from Barth’s particular development of Christocentric theology in relation to the doctrine of God and His revelation.

Revelation=Incarnation?

Barth holds that “revelation itself” is to be identified with “Jesus Christ Himself” (Church Dogmatics (CD), Vol. I, 2, p. 72). The Scriptures are regarded as “the witness to revelation” (CD, Vol. I. 2, pp.80, 116).

When we understand this distinction between Christ and the Scriptures, we are able to see why Barth rejects both natural theology and general revelation.

(a) Stressing the close connection between Scripture and revelation, Barth opposes natural theology. God is known in Jesus Christ to whom Scripture points and not through a natural theology which operates independently of Christ and the Scriptures. Concerning the Biblical writings, he writes, “their conception of what is possible with God is guided absolutely by their conception of what God has really willed and done, and not vice versa” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p.7, emphasis original). Following this method, Barth rejects the way of philosophical speculation about religion (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 7). Insisting that “(t)he incarnation of which Holy Scripture speaks can be understood only from the standpoint of Holy Scripture” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 14), he refuses to adopt a formal conception of God which excludes Christ, or which, at best, regards Him as an appendix to a view of God which is basically deistic (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 1).

(b) Barth’s rejection of the idea of general revelation is closely related to his clear distinction between Christ and the Scriptures.

He holds that Scripture attests the revelation of God which is the incarnation of the eternal Word, Jesus Christ – “we distinguish the Bible as such from revelation. A witness is not absolutely identical with that to which it witnesses … but it sets it before us” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 463). He distinguishes between revelation – “Jesus Christ Himself” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 72) – and the witness to revelation - “The Old Testament is the witness to the genuine expectation of revelation” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 70, emphasis mine), “The New Testament is really the witness to recollection of revelation” (CD, Vol. I, 2, emphasis mine).

Barth holds that Christian dogmatics must be built on a Christological foundation: “The incarnation of the eternal Word, Jesus Christ, is God’s revelation” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 1), “A church dogmatics must … be christologically determined. If dogmatics cannot regard itself … as fundamentally Christology, it has assuredly succumbed to some alien sway” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 123), “the statement, ‘Jesus Christ is very God and very Man,’ is the assumption upon which all further reflection must proceed” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 131).

He argues that the idea of general revelation is excluded by the idea that “revelation itself” is to be identified with “Jesus Christ Himself” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 72): “If God’s revelation is the way from veiling of the eternal Word to His unveiling … how can it possibly be anything else than God’s becoming man, His becoming flesh? … To be revelation it had to be an incarnation” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 43).

The difference between Berkouwer and Barth may be seen as a matter of definition – how ‘revelation’ is defined. It is, however, misleading to say that “ … the theologians who speak of a variety of revelations do not take the concept in the strict sense that Barth does” (W Pannenberg, Revelation as Hhistory, p. 6. Pannenberg co-wrote this book with others. This statement appears in his own Introduction). The plural – revelations – is misleading since Berkouwer does not think of general revelation as independent of God’s revelation in Christ. General revelation is seen as an integral part of the one, single and undivided revelation which finds its culmination in redemption through Christ. The suggestion that Berkouwer’s use of the concept of revelation is looser than that of the more precise Barth is also misleading. Berkouwer’s defence of general revelation doe not rest on loose theological terminology.

On the contrary, his position has certain advantages over Barth’s. His distinctions between (i) natural theology and general revelation (General Revelation (GR), p. 153) and (ii) revelation and the knowledge of revelation (GR, p. 57) offer a valuable contribution to areas where the relation between Barth’s Christocentric view of revelation and his view that God “has made himself known in the works of creation as God” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 306) demonstrates a distinct tension.

In his discussion of Barth’s view of the relation between revelation and creation, Berkouwer accepts his emphasis that “The biblical message concerning creation does not present us with cosmological or ontological truths of which everyone who is not wholly blind can take note (through the natural light of reason)” (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (TG)), pp. 53-54). Berkouwer accepts Barth’s view that “It is not possible first to come to a knowledge of creation in itself, and then advance to a knowledge of redemption in Christ” (TG, p. 54). Thus, Berkouwer accepts Barth’s rejection of natural theology. He does, however, emphasize that the rejection of natural theology and the insistence that “knowledge of creation is possible only in terms of the revelation in Christ” (TG, p. 54, emphasis original) need not entail the rejection of the expression ‘creational revelation’. It does mean, however, that creational revelation should be understood in terms of the unity of divine revelation which finds its central focus in Christ.

Despite his considerable agreement with Barth, Berkouwer still raises a significant point regarding what is to be called ‘revelation’. While this may, to some extent, be a matter of semantics, there is a question worth raising. Berkouwer opposes the idea that ‘revelation’ has reference only to the incarnation as a “dogmatic reflection” (GR, p. 101). He insists that “Scripture does not state such a thing at all” (GR, p. 101), emphasizing that “It must be noted how entirely different this dogmatic reflection speaks of God’s revelation than does Scripture” (GR, p. 103).

While certain Biblical passages (John 1:3ff; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2ff) suggest that the revelation of God in nature may be regarded as a revelation of the Son, it is questionable whether Barth’s conception of revelation provides the most apt description of the unity of God’s gracious work of creation and redemption.

Barth’s conception of revelation may be related to the idea of revelation, summed up in the words, “Only God can reveal God”. The expression, “Only God can reveal God” may be interpreted to mean that only the incarnation can be called revelation. This interpretation is, however, based on a restrictive notion of the revealing activity of God. The created world may not be identified with God. God can, however, be regarded as actively revealing Himself through creation.

When Barth writes, “To be revelation it had to be incarnation” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 43), he seeks to emphasize the completeness of incarnational revelation: “Incarnation was needed in order that God might become manifest to us” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 43).

The emphasis on the completeness of incarnational revelation need not, however, require the restriction of the term ‘revelation’ to the incarnation. When creational revelation is affirmed, it is acknowledged that such revelation lacks the completeness of incarnational revelation. Creational revelation is only properly understood in the light of the incarnation. This need not mean that the idea of creational revelation demands the positing of a second ‘revelation’ over against the incarnation and that the term ‘revelation’ must, therefore, be restricted to the incarnation.

Barth’s concern may be to emphasize the unity of divine revelation. It is questionable, however, whether he has given adequate expression to this unity. The concept of creational revelation, properly understood in the light of the unity of divine revelation, proclaims the sovereignty of God in His revelation, while emphasizing the historical character of divine revelation with greater clarity than Barth’s conception of revelation which reflects a “revised supralapsarianism” which “blocks the way to ascribing decisive significance to history” (TG, p. 256, emphasis original. For fuller discussion, see pp. 255 ff. In my next few posts, I will be discussing matters relating to Barth’s doctrine of election and the question of universalism).

Barth’s conception of revelation is not fully understood without reference to his rejection of natural theology.

It should, however, be observed that the affirmation of creational revelation contains no suggestion that there is, in fallen man, “an affinity and aptitude for God’s revelation” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 37) or that there is, in created reality, “a special capacity for revealing God” (CD, Vol. I, 2, p. 43).

Barth’s offensive against natural theology is motivated by a desire to reject the idea that man contributes to God’s salvation. It does not, however, follow that the confession of God’s creational revelation gives man any encouragement to take pride in the contribution he supposes himself to have made to God’s salvation.

A proper understanding of creational revelation in relation to divine redemption leads to a clear emphasis on the sovereignty of God in His redemption.

Berkouwer has stated that, in any discussion of Barth’s theology, “The pivotal question is, whether we have the right to conclude from the exclusive salvation in Christ to the exclusive revelation in Christ” (GR, p. 104).

Barth protests against the idea of God as “power in itself” (Dogmatics in Outline(DO), p. 46. For more on this, see pp. 46-49). He emphasizes God’s freedom (DO, p. 47) by which He has revealed His power in His free, gracious condescension in Christ (DO, p.101ff). He insists that creation is grace (DO, pp. 54, 57).

This rejection of the God of natural theology is to be welcomed. The question remains, however, whether the God of natural theology has not, despite Barth’s commitment to the authority of Scripture, been replaced by the God of Barth’s own peculiar form of Christomonism.

This is not to suggest that we can make a direct and unambiguous identification of Barth’s theology with Christomonism. Nevertheless, the connection between the two should be explored, leaving the reader to decide for himself to what extent the term ‘Christomonism’ can be applied to Barth’s theology.

Karl Barth and Universalism: Comments from Berkouwer, Brown, Bromiley and Bloesch

2011-10-24T19:00:00.000+01:00

By asking us to consider the question, “How convincing is Barth’s rejection of universalism?”, Berkouwer is really calling in question Barth’s understanding of election. He is really asking, “Does Scripture teach this idea of universal election?”
—–
Colin Brown has also been forthright on this point. He suggests that Barth’s reservation with regard to universalism should have taken place not at the point of drawing possible consequences from his theology. It should have taken place at the outset of his Christological approach to theology.He maintains that “the trouble is that all Barth’s theology is made to centre around an idea of Christ. But it is not exactly the biblical idea of Christ” (KB, p. 138). Brown concludes that “it is a Christ-idea that often gives Barth his characteristic emphases” and that this has meant that “Some important aspects of the New Testament teaching had to be stretched to make them fit, while others had to be lopped off” (KB, p. 152. See also p. 12).
Contrasting Barth’s idea of Christ with the Biblical idea of Christ, Brown writes, “Whilst God deals with men through Christ, Christ is not equally all things to all men. To some he is Saviour, to others He is Judge. According to … the New Testament …, God deals with men in two ways … as they are in themselves apart from Christ. And … as they are in Christ. The two spheres are not identical … All men are by nature in the first. Some are by grace in the second” (KB, p. 139).
—–
G W Bromiley is also critical of Barth’s theology. He has summarized Barth’s view thus: “The lie cannot overthrow the truth, but God may finally condemn the liar to live in it” (“Karl Barth”, Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology(CM), edited by P E Hughes, p. 49, citing CD, Vol. IV, 3, Section 70, 2), Bromiley observes, in Barth’s view, “the trend toward an ultimate universalism” while acknowledging that “universalism in the sense of the salvation of all individuals is not a necessary implicate of Barth’s Christological universalism” (CM, p. 54). Bromiley suggests, however, that Barth’s reservation with respect to ultimate universalism is “not really adequate” (CM, p. 54). What Bromiley says here is similar to what Berkouwer has said. He acknowledges that Barth and others after him have attempted to dissociate themselves from universal salvation. The question remains, “How convincing is their rejection of universalism? If we find it unconvincing, we can either (a) go with those who tells us that universal election leads us on to universal salvation; or (b) move back from oour questioning of the idea of universal salvation to think of election differently from Barth.
—–
The view of Donald G. Bloesch is also of interest. Following Barth’s suggestion that ‘Jesus is Victor’ expresses his theological emphasis better than Berkouwer’s title, ‘the triumph of grace’, D G Bloesch, entitled his book on Barth, Jesus is Victor! - Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Salvation. Bloesch, nevertheless, reached similar conclusions to those of Berkouwer. Acknowledging that Barth’s idea of universal election is neither a metaphysical presupposition nor a rational conclusion but an affirmation of faith and hope, which Barth holds, is implied in the Biblical witness, Bloesch argues that Barth has failed to to hold together the objective and subjective poles of salvation and that his logic leads in the direction of universalism.
Since Bloesch’s title takes account of Barth’s reaction to Berkouwer’s title, we should pass comment on Barth’s comments on Berkouwer’s title While seeking to be fair to both Barth and Berkouwer, we may ask whether Barth’s criticism of Berkouwer’s title has really done very much to lessen the force of Berkouwer’s argument - ‘the asking of the apokastasis question (universalism) … is warranted by the simple fact of taking Barth seriously’ ‘Barth’s express rejection of the doctrine of the apokatastasis must be fully taken into account but it is precisely when we do so that the tensions within his teaching become the more visible’ (The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, 112, 266 - brackets and emphasis mine).
It is precisely because Barth is, by his own profession, not a universalist that the discussion of his theology is so important. The answer to the question, ‘Is Karl Barth a Universalist?’, must, if we take Barth’s own words seriously, be ‘No’. This, however, raises another question, ‘Is Karl Barth’s rejection of universalism convincing?’ This is the central issue raised by Berkouwer. He never states that Barth is a universalist on the basis that he must be a universalist. He acknowedges that Barth dissociates himself from universalism. He does, however, question the effectiveness of Barth’s rejection of universalism ( T of G, Chapter X, ‘The Universality of the Triumph’, 262-296).
Berkouwer commends Barth for his concentration on Jesus Christ. This is what gives Barth’s theology its ‘triumphant and joyful character’ (T of G, 212). While he does not suggest that human sin should be taken more seriously than divine grace, Berkouwer does insist that we need to take great care if we are to understand the precise nature of the relationship between divine grace and human sin. He insists that ‘there can never be a question of too strongly accenting the grace of God’. He emphasizes that ‘the question is, how shall we lay the proper emphases and how can we most purely praise this grace. It is never the full accent but the wrong accent that obscures the gospel of God’s grace’ (T of G 349).
In his critique of Barth’s theology, Berkouwer lays great emphasis on the importance of both grace and faith. His emphasis on faith ensures that his theology does not lean towards the kind of universalism which Barth seeks to avoid. By emphasizing that ‘faith has significance only in its orientation to its object - the grace of God’ (Faith and Justification, 29), he seeks to avoid the kind of theology which draws our attention away from the God of grace.
We may ask, whether Berkouwer - with his great emphasis on our response of faith as well as the initiative of divine grace - leads us away from the sovereignty of God over the whole of reality to a sovereignty of God within the heart of the believer. It may be argued that Berkouwer proclaims the sovereignty of God no less emphatically than Barth. He does, however, offer interpret divine sovereignty differently from Barth.
The sovereignty of God over the whole of reality may be viewed as the demonstration that salvation is salvation in God’s way - by grace through faith. When salvation in God’s way - by grace through faith - is properly understood, there is no suggestion that we are moving away from the sovereignty of God over the whole of reality to a sovereignty of God within the heart of the believer. In God’s way of salvation, we see the sovereignty of God over man. God’s way of salvation - by grace through faith - is vindicated over against man’s attempt at achieving salvation through his own works.
This view of God’s gracious sovereignty maintains that reconciliation is God’s work, accomplished in God’s way. There is no movement in the direction of universal reconciliation. There is no wrong emphasis on faith which leads us to give faith a significance that is independent of divine grace.
The question is not one of human decision versus divine decision. Rather, it concerns the understanding of the truth.
The idea of a single truth concerning mankind seems far removed from the Biblical emphasis on the decisiveness for his eternal destiny of man’s relation to the truth. In one sense, there is a single truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth. The Truth concerning Him is that He is the Way by which men receive Life (John 14:6). This understanding of Truth requires to be carefully distinguished from the idea of a single truth concerning mankind which can be deduced from the affirmation of Christ as the Truth without reference to the presence or absence of faith in a man.

Marx’s Call for a World-Changing Philosophy: Christian Faith in Dialogue with Herbert Marcuse (1)

2011-10-19T00:40:00.000+01:00

Marcuse emphasizes that liberation is grounded in the truth.
He sees, in Marx’s thought, an “absolutism of truth (which) … once for all separates dialectical theory from the subsequent forms of positivism and relativism” (Reason and Revolution (RR), p. 322, emphasis mine).
Marcuse describes this absolutism of truth thus: “According to Marx, the correct theory is the consciousness of a practice that aims at changing the world. Marx’s concept of truth, however, is far from relativism. There is only one truth and one practice capable of realizing it. Theory accompanies the practice at every moment, analysing the changing situation and formulating its concepts accordingly. The concrete conditions for realizing the truth may vary, but the truth remains the same and the theory remains its ultimate guardian. Theory will preserve the truth even if revolutionary practice deviates from its proper path. Practice follows the truth not vice versa” (RR, pp. 321-322, emphasis mine).
Marx’s call for a world-changing philosophy is, in Marcuse’s opinion, directly related to the liberation of the individual since, for Marx, the transition from capitalism to socialism is necessary “in the sense that the full development of the individual is necessary” (RR, p. 317).
It is this goal of individual freedom which must be maintained where revolutionary practice has resulted in the replacement of one repressive system with another.
The New Testament conception of truth is quite different from that of Marcuse.
The New Testament proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6) and that freedom comes through truth - “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
When truth is defined christologically, Jesus Christ is recognized as the Liberator. The practice of liberation is, then, rooted in the confession of faith in Him as the Liberator.
When liberation theology is properly rooted in such faith in the Liberator, it does not become social activism which is independent of personal faith.
Discussing the connection between Christology and “political theology”, Berkouwer writes, “Helmut Thielicke … criticizes ‘political theology’ on the grounds of its christology, not on the grounds of its concern for the affairs of this world. In this christology, Thielicke thinks, Jesus is viewed as a model of human activity in such a way that the issue of his divinity evaporates. He sees this as a natural upshot of a christology that has concern only with man and his world. Jesus becomes a substitute for an absent God. Naturally, in the mind of ‘political theologians’ Thielicke’s fears are misplaced. For, they say, what they want is not to replace the gospel, but to trace its bearing on worldly affairs” (A Half Century of Theology, pp. 208-209, emphasis original).
According to Berkouwer, “the problem for Christian theology lies in the manner in which the work of man is integrated into the work of God” (p. 209, emphasis original).
Man’s liberating activity must be rooted in rather than arbitrarily separated from the liberating activity of God in Christ.
The New Testament proclamation concerning the work of Jesus Christ the Liberator emphasizes the uniqueness of His redemption through which man, by faith, receives God’s gracious gift of justification (Romans 3:24-25).
In view of this teaching concerning the uniqueness of the work of Jesus Christ the Liberator, salvation is described thus: “this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
The call to Christian obedience is issued on the basis of divine mercy (Romans 12:1; Ephesians 2:10).
A Christian theology of liberation may be regarded as an attempt to understand the Gospel and follow its practical implications in the contemporary world without implying an unbelieving replacement of the Gospel of divine redemption with an ethic of social action.

Berkouwer's Doctrine of Scripture (Part One)

2011-10-10T19:16:00.000+01:00

Berkouwer insists that when “the concept of error in the sense of incorrectness is … used on the same level as the concept of erring in the sense of sin and deception … we are quite far removed from the serious manner with which erring is dealt in Scripture … (as) a swerving from the truth and upsetting the faith (2 Tim. 2:18)” (Holy Scripture (HS), p. 181, emphasis and brackets mine).
Berkouwer rejects “the formalization of inerrancy” (HS, p. 181, emphasis mine), “a mechanical, inflexible ‘inerrancy’” (HS, p. 265, emphasis mine), “a rationally developed infallibility” (HS, p. 32, emphasis mine).
He does, however, seek to interpret positively both infallibility and inerrancy: “the Holy Spirit … does not lead us into error but into the pathways of truth … The Spirit, with this special concern, has not failed and will not fail in this mystery of God-breathed Scripture” (HS, pp. 265-266).
When we consider Berkouwer’s criticism of “a theoretical concept of inspiration or infallibility” (HS, which (HS, p. 33, n. 70), which is inclined to tell us what Scripture must be if it is to be regarded as the Word of God, it is important that we do not lose sight of his positive interpretation of the concepts of infallibility and inerrancy.
In these positive interpretations, we see Berkouwer’s real concern - a constructive attempt to understand Scripture more clearly.

Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Scripture (Part Two)

2011-10-10T19:15:00.001+01:00

Understanding Berkouwer's interpretation of 'inerrancy - three important passages of Scripture: Matthew 22:29, Psalm 95:10 and 1 Samuel 26:21.

(i) “You do err, not knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29).

We need both the Scriptures and the power of God if we are to be kept from erring. If we are not hearing and heeding the Scriptures through “walking in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16, 25), we will most certainly deviate from the pathway of “following the truth” (2 John 4).

(ii) “For forty years I loathed that generation and said, ‘They are a people who err in heart, and they do not regard My ways’” (Psalm 95:10).

We need both the Scriptures and the power of God if we are to be kept from “erring in heart”, delivered from wrong attitudes to God and His Word.

(iii) “I have played the fool and erred exceedingly” (1 Samuel 26:21).

We need both the Scriptures and the power of God if we are to be kept from playing the fool and erring exceedingly, delivered from wrong actions which will make “shipwreck of our faith” (1 Timothy 1:19) and ruin our lives.

If we are to take the burning heat out of “the battle for the Bible”, it’s high time we turned our Bibles “from a battlefield into a source of spiritual strength”.

We do not deny the content of our confession - Scripture really is God’s Word. We do, however, strongly emphasize the context of this confession - our relationship with Jesus Christ.

Berkouwer's Doctrine of Scripture (Part Three)

2011-10-10T19:15:00.000+01:00

A comparison of the views of G. C. Berkowuer and E. J. Young

Young has proposed Biblical warrant for his concept of inerrancy - 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21 ( Thy Word is Truth, pp. 18-26); John 10:35 (pp. 26-27); Matthew 5:17-18 (pp. 48-49). It is, however, far from self-evident that the passages proposed can bear the full weight of his interpretation. Viewed in terms of the stated purpose of Scripture, these passages need not be interpreted in the way that Young suggests.
His argument is based on inferential thinking by which his concept of inerrancy is inferred from the absolute perfection of God. The idea that the Bible must be inerrant, in the way that Young describes inerrancy, contains certain questionable implications. It is not immediately apparent that the refusal to accept Young’s concept of inerrancy must be based on the idea that God is incapable of providing man with an inerrant Bible (This is what Young says on p. 73). It is not self-evident that the refusal to accept Young’s concept of inerrancy should be identified with the declaration that “There are flaws or errors in God Himself” (This is what Young says on p. 123). The idea that the presence of purely formal error in Scripture is incompatible with the moral perfection of God is questionable because it tends to define ‘perfection’ apart from the purpose of Scripture. Berkouwer’s criticism of the kind of inferential thinking used by Young is not based on a limitation of God’s power to reveal Himself in whatever way He chooses. His criticism of the kind of inferential thinking used by Young is not based on a rather empty conception of the freedom of God which he uses to avoid drawing necessary conclusions concerning the authority of Scripture. Rather, it is based on the recognition of God’s purpose in Scripture. Holding that the Bible is all that God wants it to be in accordance with His precise purpose, Berkouwer insists that it is unnecessary to posit a perfection which extends beyond the confines of the specific purpose of Scripture. From this perspective, Berkouwer challenges those who adopt Young’s view of inerrancy to consider whether they would be more Biblical in their thinking if they questioned their tendency to think in terms of how God must act.

Berkouwer's Doctrine of Scripture (Part Four)

2011-10-10T19:14:00.001+01:00

The purpose for which God has given us Scripture

Berkouwer points out that “Scripture itself in a very explicit way speaks about its intention” (Holy Scripture, p. 125 where he cites John 20:31, Romans 15:4, Romans 4:23-24, 1 Corinthians 10:11, 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Timothy 1:18-19). He emphasizes that his approach is not “an arbitrary approach to Holy Scripture” (p. 125), based on a modern outlook which places a restriction on Biblical authority. Rather, it is an approach, based on Scripture itself, which seeks to understand the proper nature of Scripture’s absolute authority.

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, there is a strong emphasis on the purpose of Scripture - “the Holy Scriptures … are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus … and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Between the two statements - ‘Scriptures makes us wise for salvation’ and ‘Scripture is profitable … ‘, there is the great statement that “All Scripture is given by inspiration by God.”

It is important to notice that the statement about the inspiration of Scripture does not stand in splendid isolation, detached from everything time-related such as our need to be saved and to to be led in the paths of righteousness.

Berkouwer's Doctrine of Scripture (Part Five)

2011-10-10T19:14:00.000+01:00

Scripture is God’s Word for every time and every place.

When we affirm that Scripture is inspired by God, we cannot adopt the view of cultural relativism which strips the Scriptures of their absolute authority. We believe that Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). We believe that Scripture, with its supreme goal of pointing us to the Saviour, continues to speak to us as “the living and abiding Word of God” through which we are “born again” (1 Peter 1:23).

We look back to the times when the Biblical events took place. These times are very different from our own. There is much in Scripture which we will only understand when we step outside of our own time and place. We must, however, never lose sight of the fact that, in relation to its supreme purpose - leading us to faith in Christ and on to maturity in Him, Scripture speaks to us as the Word of God for every time and every place.

Here, we may learn from the Old Testament scholar, R. K. Harrison of Toronto, sought, over his first few weeks with new students, to take them (in their imagination!) from Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa … to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Sinai …

This immersing of ourselves in the Ancient Near East can serve only to enrich our understanding of the Bible. To be thoroughly acquainted with the broad background against which Scripture is set is of immense value for accurate, well-informed Biblical interpretation.

We must, however, take care that the background does not become the foreground. It must remain what it is - the background. All our knowledge of the background is intended to lead us to the foreground - Jesus Christ. We must approach all our background authorities with the question, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus” (John 12:20).

The Spirit, the Scriptures and salvation

2011-10-09T00:59:00.000+01:00

In his post, The perspicuity of Scripture, Ben Myers quotes from Berkouwer's "fine book", Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1975), p. 275.

He begins his post, "Reformation theologians spoke of the "clarity" or "perspicuity of Scripture ... According to Reformation theology, the message of salvation shines out clearly from Scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit."

He emphasizes that "the confession of perspicuity meant that through the witness of the Spirit the message of the gospel becomes clear and compelling here and now as the Bible is read and (especially) preached."

He, then, quotes Berkouwer, " ... According to the Reformers, the force behind this connection of message and words was the power of the Spirit ... "

Berkouwer's "The Triumph of Grace ... " - one of the best books ever written on Barth

2011-10-09T00:33:00.000+01:00

In his post, The best books ever written on Karl Barth, Ben Myers includes G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (London: Paternoster, 1956 [1954]).

Berkouwer's "Triumph of Grace ... "

2011-10-09T00:16:00.000+01:00

"Berkouwer's Triumph of Grace is one of the best three or four books ever written about Barth's theology -- it's really a work of interpretive genius" (Ben Myers, commenting on his own post, "Why I am not a universalist" at his "Faith and Theology" website).

Berkouwer's "Holy Scripture" (and link to "Herman Bavinck on the authority of the Bible")

2011-10-08T18:33:00.000+01:00

Bavinck’s position (for more on Bavinck - Herman Bavinck on the authority of the Bible) was later developed in great detail by G. C. Berkouwer in his brilliant study Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).

Berkouwer's "The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth"

2011-10-08T18:26:00.000+01:00

In his post, Karl Barth's early theology of crisis, Ben Myers quotes Berkouwer.
----
“[Barth’s] deepest intention was to point to the crisis for the sake of pointing to the grace of
God, to speak the No for the sake of making the divine Yes heard. In this crisis all human ways are exposed as dead-end roads in order that the one Way might be revealed. The divine Yes is the background of the radical crisis which is suspended over the whole of life.” — G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (London: Paternoster, 1956), p. 33.

Berkouwer's "A Half Century of Theology"

2011-10-08T18:24:00.000+01:00

In his post, Theological autobiography, Ben Myers writes,

"Although there hasn’t been much theological autobiography in the past century, G. C. Berkouwer’s A Half Century of Theology(1977) deserves mention. It’s a stimulating discussion of major developments in twentieth-century theology from the perspective of Berkouwer’s own experience and development."

Berkouwer on the Spirit and the Scriptures

2011-10-08T18:16:00.000+01:00

Berkouwer emphasizes the present activity of the Spirit in pointing men to Christ through the words of the Bible - "Scripture is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit witnesses in it of Christ” (Holy Scripture, p. 162, emphasis mine); “the purpose of the God-breathed Scripture is … to witness of the salvation of God unto faith” (p. 180); “the unmistakable aim of Scripture is the knowledge of faith, which … is life eternal” ( p. 180). He insists that this understanding of the relation between the Spirit and “Scripture opens up a perspective that is not locked in the past” (Holy Scripture, p. 344). He emphasizes that “Believing Scripture does not mean staring at a holy and mysterious book, but hearing the witness concerning Christ. The respect for the concrete words is related precisely to this, and the ‘is’ of the confession (Scripture is the Word of God) points to the mystery of the Spirit, who wants to bind men to Christ through these words, through this witness.” (Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, p. 166). By speaking of the Holy Spirit’s witness to Jesus Christ, Berkouwer does not intend to draw our attention away from the human witness to Jesus Christ. Rather, he seeks to direct our attention to the ‘deep dimension of the human witness’. Concerning this ‘deep dimension’, he writes, ‘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). In his doctoral dissertation, written under Berkouwer's supervision, J. C. VanderStelt gave a helpful summary of this understanding of the relationship between the Spirit and the Scriptures: “Scripture does not work rationally apart from the Spirit, and neither does the Spirit work mystically apart from the Scriptures.” (Philosophy and Scripture, p. 331).

Some Links to Theological Articles (1)

2011-10-08T13:42:00.000+01:00

For the love of God (23): Why I love G. C. Berkouwer

G. C. Berkouwer

G. C. Berkouwer's studies in dogmatics

G. C. Berkouwer on divine and human action

Th e Authority of Holy Scripture

Discussing the authority of Holy Scripture in the modern world, Berkouwer writes, “The confession of the authority of the Word of God...
Assessing Pannenberg's Critique of Barth's Theology

PANNENBERG IS VERY BOLD IN HIS CRITICISM OF BARTH’S THEOLGY. HE CALLS IT ‘THE FARTHEST EXTREME OF SUBJECTIVISM MADE INTO A THEOLOGICAL POSITION …

Theological Connections between G. C. Berkouwer and Herman Bavinck: Berkouwer’s Critique of Barth’s Anthropology and Christology

For Barth, Christ is the key to understanding our human life. If Christ, God’s revelation, is taken away, man is thrown into an abyss...

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

The question of universalism in Barth’s theology has been raised...

The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth

G C Berkouwer’s book on Barth is entitled, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth. Barth was not happy with this title.

Natural theology and general revelation

Berkouwer makes a clear distinction between natural theology and general revelation.

Berkouwer's Doctrine of Scripture

Berkouwer insists that when “the concept of error in the sense of incorrectness is … used on the same level as the concept of erring in the...

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...

The Free University of Amsterdam - A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck, V. Hepp and G. C. Berkouwer
Berkouwer and the Free University of Amsterdam - Berkouwer’s confrontation with scholasticism has been immediate.

Assessing the Christology of Wolfhart Pannenberg
In his Christology, Pannenberg adopts a ‘from below’ approach rather than a ‘from above’ approach.

Herbert Marcuse and Marx’s Call for a World-Changing Philosophy

The difference between Marcuse’s perspective and that of traditional Marxism is that the former is less one-sided in its analysis...

John McLeod Campbell on the Atonement

We begin with the charges brought against McLeod Campbell by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1831.

"Berkouwer's Theology of the Christian life" and other links

2011-10-08T13:39:00.000+01:00

Berkouwer’s Theology of the Christian Life

Theological Connections between G. C. Berkouwer and Herman Bavinck: Understanding the Idea of Predestina tion

The Sufficiency and Reliability of Scripture

"Pride and Faith" in Berkouwer's "Studies in Dogmatics" (Man's Need of Salvation)

Berkouwer on Bonhoeffer

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (full article)

2011-09-30T13:43:00.001+01:00

This post contains the full article, "Arminius- Hero or Heretic?" This article was first published in Evangelical Quarterly 64:3 (1992): 213-227.
--
Some proclaim Arminius as a hero. Others denounce him as a heretic. It may, however, be ore accurate to describe him as an enigma. Commenting on the enigmatic character of Arminius, Carl Bangs writes, "Some Calvinists, finding that his writings do not produce the heresies they expected, have charged him with teaching secret heresy, unpublished. Many Arminians, finding him too Calvinistic, have written him off as a transitional thinker, a ‘forerunner’" (Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Grand Rapids, 1985), 18).
Arminius is a largely misunderstood theologian. He is frequently assessed according to superficial hearsay. Much has been written on Calvin. A great deal less work has been done on Arminius. This article may go a little way towards redressing the balance. A serious attempt to understand Arminius will carefully avoid two less than helpful approaches
- rushing towards an overhasty ‘Calvinist’ critique of Arminius
- setting Arminius on a pedestal where he is beyond criticism.
It is hoped, then, that this short study of Arminius will encourage a more constructive approach to the Calvinist-Arminian debate.
This article is chiefly concerned with a discussion of the doctrines commonly known as ‘the ive points of Calvinism’. We begin, however, with three introductory points regarding Arminius.
(1). We should not exaggerate the differences between Calvin (1509-64) and Arminius (1560-1609).
(2). We should pay close attention to Arminius’ concern with reconciliation between himself and his Calvinist critics.
(3). We should note carefully Arminius’ avowed commitment to Scripture.
First, the differences between Calvin and Arminius should not be exaggerated. It would come as a great surprise to many to hear Arminius recommending Calvin’s Commentaries in the following terms: "after the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate... more than any other... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read... in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable... his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers... I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all" (Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae, no. 101. This excerpt from a letter to Egbertsz., May 3, 1607 is cited by Bangs, 287).
Second, we should pay close attention to Arminius’ concern with reconciliation. In his lecture, ‘On Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians’ (February 8, 1606), he says that there are four things we must keep in mind:
"first, it is very difficult to discover truth and avoid error; second, people who err are more ikely to be ignorant than malicious; third, those who err may be among the elect; and fourth, it is possible that we ourselves are in error" (The Works of James Arminius, D.D., (American edition of 1956), I, 183. Cited by Bangs, 276).
Third, we should note carefully Arminius’ avowed commitment to Scripture. Arminius maintains that his only ambition is "to inquire with all earnestness in the Holy Scriptures for divine truth... for the purpose of my winning some souls for Christ" 4 Works, II, 475-478. Cited by Bangs, 296).
Concerning the controversial subject of predestination, he writes, "One caution ought to be strictly observed, that nothing be taught concerning it (predestination) beyond what the Scriptures say" (Works, I, 569. Cited by Bangs, 263).
Shortly before his death, Arminius wrote, "I have guarded with the greatest solicitude and care against advancing or teaching anything which, after a diligent search into the Scriptures, I had not found exactly to agree with those sacred records" (The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1828, and 1875), I, 46-47. Cited by Bangs, 330).
Before entering upon our discussion of ‘the five points of Calvinism’ (Canons of Dort, approved at the Synod of Dort, 1618-19), we note two basic observations concerning the difference between Arminius and Arminianism.
First, Fred Klooster, in his article, ‘The Doctrinal Deliverances of Dort’, points out that Arminius "did not work out or develop the system of doctrine that has come to be called by his name" (P. Y. de Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, Grand Rapids, 1968, p. 54).
Second, Alan Sell, in his book, The Great Debate. Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, maintains that "in important respects, Arminius was not an Arminian" (Worthing, West Sussex, 1982, 97).The ‘five points of Calvinism’ are frequently referred to by the acronym ‘TULIP’, with each of the five letters of the word ‘tulip’ standing for one of the five points of Calvinism: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. In discussing these matters, we must take care that the system does not take precedence over the gospel. When the system prevails over the gospel, the question which preoccupies us is this: Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian? When the gospel is at the forefront of our attention, the question which really concerns us is this: Is the gospel really coming through to me in my reading of Scripture? As we explore this subject, the grace of God in salvation, we must seek earnestly and prayerfully that the gospel will really come through to us.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
The issue which concerns us here is the relationship between ‘free will’ and grace. Arminius stated that his objective was to present ‘a theology of grace which does not leave man “a stock or a stone”’ (Works, III, 529-530. Cited by Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 195).
There is in fact, a twofold objective here.
First, Arminius wants to present a theology of grace, a theology which is really and truly a theology of grace, and not a man-centred theology of works. Second, he wants to understand grace in a way that will not devalue the real significance of human experience.
Arminius struggles to avoid determinism. He emphasizes that the real contrast is not between determinism and free will. Rather, it is the contrast between grace and sin.
In presenting his theology of grace, Arminius affirms that "grace (is) essential for the beginning, continuation, and consummation of faith" (Bangs, 343). He stresses that the possibility of faith is "a possibility of grace" (Bangs, 343). Faith is not a good work by which man earns salvation. Our act of believing does not give us any grounds for boasting before God.
Arminius stresses that there is no ‘free will’ in the life of sin (Bangs, 191). Sinful man is in bondage. He can only be liberated by an act of grace. In a lecture entitled, "On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers" (July 23, 1605), Arminius ‘spares nothing in describing the loss of free will in the state of sin’ (Bangs, 269).
In this state the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened, but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost... it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace (Works, I, 526-529. Cited by Bangs, 269).
In this account of the relationship between grace and sin, Arminius ‘leave(s) no room at all for an initiation of repentance and faith by free will’ (Bangs, 269). It is hardly surprising that Carl Bangs comments, "Few of those who called themselves Arminians in later centuries could have accepted a position so strongly Calvinistic" (269).
This is not, however, all that Arminius says about ‘free will’. He distinguishes between freedom from necessity and freedom from sin. Man may be ‘addicted to evil’, (The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1823 and 1875), III, 470-471. Cited by Bangs, 215) but he is not the prisoner of a deterministic necessity. In emphasizing the sinfulness of man and the necessity of divine grace, Arminius insists that "The entire process of believing from 'initial fear' to ‘illumination, regeneration, renovation, and confirmation’ is of grace" (341).
Stressing that man is not the victim of deterministic necessity, Arminius maintains that "Grace rescues free will, but not without the choice of the will thus rescued" (Bangs, 216). He contends that Evangelical belief is the free choice to receive offered grace, which offered grace makes the free choice possible. In all this man does nothing apart from grace: he earns nothing; he contributes nothing; but he chooses freely.
By emphasizing that the real contrast is the contrast between grace and sin, and not the contrast between determinism and free will, Arminius is able to make two very important points:
First, all the glory for salvation must be given not to ourselves but to God;
Second, it would be quite wrong to imagine that we ourselves have no say in whether or not we believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
It should not be supposed that Arminius denies the doctrines of election and predestination. Concerning the doctrine of election, he writes, "I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others, for I think that this is certain from the plain words of Scripture. (Works, III, 94. Cited by Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 201).
He insists that ‘no one is saved except through an act of predestination’ (Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae, no. 26. Cited by Bangs, 204. The manuscript of this letter to Uitenbogaert is in "the Remonstrant collection housed in the University of Amsterdam, R. K., III E, 17", Bangs, 203, n. 36).

He offers the following definition of predestination:
"Predestination... is the decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ by which he resolved within himself from all eternity to justify, adopt, and endow with eternal life, to the praise of his own glorious grace, believers on whom he had decreed to bestow faith (Works, I, 565. Cited by Bangs, 262).

He emphasizes that this decree is an eternal decree "because God does nothing in time which he has not decreed to do from all eternity" (Works, I, 566. Cited by Bangs, 262).

According to Arminius, this predestination - "believers shall be saved, unbelievers shall be damned" - is absolute (The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1828, and 1875), III, 451. Cited by Bangs, 219.).

Arminius insists that he is not "inserting the element of conditionality into the arena of grace" (This phrase is borrowed from M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance, (Edinburgh, 1985), 9). He is not teaching that salvation is "purchased by man" through his act of faith (Bell, 9).

Arminius stresses that "repentance is not a meritorious work" and that "(t)he same is true of faith" (Bangs, 351).

He writes, "We give the name of ‘believers’ not to those who would be such by their own merits or strength, but to those who by the gratuitous and peculiar kindness of God would believe in Christ" ("Public Disputation, 15", in Works, I, 567. Cited by Bangs, 351).

In emphasizing that faith is not a meritorious work, he points out that "no one except a sinner can know or acknowledge Christ for his Savior, for he is the Savior of sinners" ("Private Disputation, 44", in Works, I, 110-111. Cited by Bangs, 342).

We will now make some comments on Arminius’ view of predestination.

First, he teaches that predestination is ‘in Christ’ (Works, I, 565. Cited by Bangs, 262). These words ‘in Christ’ are very important. We do not need to think in terms of a deterministic necessity in order to avoid the idea that faith is a meritorious work. We simply need to utter those precious words, ‘in Christ’. Commenting on Paul’s use of the words ‘in Christ’, G. C. Berkouwer writes, "Ephesians 1:4 emphasizes the exclusion of all merit by mentioning the name of Christ" (Divine Election, p. 143).

Second, he describes predestination as ‘the decree of the good pleasure of God’ (Works, I, 565. Cited by Bangs, 262). Commenting on the phrase ‘the good pleasure of God’, a phrase which is used in the Authorized Version’s translation of Ephesians 1:5, 9, G. C. Berkouwer stresses that it should not be "detached from the grace of God" and that it should not be set "in contrast to the historical gospel" (Bangs, 145, 151). This phrase ‘the good pleasure of God’ is not to be understood in the sense of God doing anything he arbitrarily chooses to do. Rather, it is to be understood along these lines: the good pleasure of God is his gracious purpose to save.
Third, he speaks of the predestination of ‘believers’ (Works I, 565. Cited by Bangs, 262). This aspect of Arminius’ view of predestination is closely related to his interpretation of Romans 9. Arminius comments thus on Romans 9, "I candidly confess that this chapter has always seemed to me to be involved in the greatest obscurity, and its explanation has appeared most difficult" (Works III, 528. Cited by Bangs, 194).
This does not, however, prevent him from boldly taking issue with the interpretation given by his opponents. He says that they "misunderstand the chapter because they look in it for an answer to a question with which it is not dealing" (Bangs, 195). He insists that Romans 9 does not speak about a hidden will of God. He points out that we are clearly taught the identity of those whom God wills to harden: "Nothing is more plain in Scripture than that sinners persevering in their sins against the longsuffering of God, who invites them to repentance, are those whom God wills to harden" (Works III, 548-549. Cited by Bangs, 197). Arminius understands Romans 9 in terms of a ‘predestination of classes’ - "those who seek righteousness by works and those who seek it by faith": Esau is a type of those who seek righteousness by works while Jacob is a type of those who seek righteousness by faith (Bangs, 196). Summing up Arminius’ interpretation of Romans 9, Bangs writes, "What, then, is the message of Romans 9? It is the message of justification by faith. It is the message of the freedom of God’s mercy, whereby he alone determines who shall be saved, namely, the believer. This is an affirmation of predestination. God has predestined to salvation all who believe in Christ (Bangs, 198).
A similar interpretation of Romans 9 has been presented by the modern interpreter, H. Ridderbos. He insists that Romans 9 is not concerned with "irrevocable 'eternal decrees’" but with "the electing character of God’s grace, not based on human merit or strength" ( Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 345). Ridderbos speaks of ‘the fixed and unassailable character of divine redemption’, emphasizing that it "does not rest on the fact that the church belongs to a certain 'number', but that it belongs to Christ" (350). He stresses that "the fixed and unassailable character of the divine work of redemption... does not lie in a hidden decretum... but in the corporate unity of the church with Christ, whom it has come to know in the gospel and has learned to embrace in faith" (350-351). Romans 9 need not be seen as an enigma at the heart of the great epistle of justification by faith. Rather, it can be seen as a chapter which emphasizes the doctrine of justification by faith no less than any other part of this great epistle. We do not need to think in terms of a paradox between a ‘kerygmatic’ trend in Paul’s thinking and a ‘predestinational’ trend (Berkouwer, Divine Election, 133).

G. C. Berkouwer emphasizes the importance of this point when he writes, " To isolate election from the love of God in Christ is dangerous... because it is impossible afterwards to connect the two. The gospel can be preached with real urgency and challenge only when the mirror of election is a clearly reflecting mirror" (154).

Fourth, Arminius maintains that predestination is ‘from all eternity’ (Works, I, 565. Cited by Bangs, 262). It is at this point that I would suggest that Arminius runs into difficulties. Alongside his idea of the predestination of classes, he sets his view of the predestination of individuals - "predestination of classes is absolute or without qualification; predestination of individuals is with respect to foreseen faith" (Bangs, 219). When Arminius speaks of the predestination in terms of this interpretation of the relationship between foreknowledge and predestination, he leaves himself open to criticism (Rom. 8:29 - "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined... " (R.S.V.), 1 Peter 1:2 - "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." (A.V.). The point at issue concerns whether such phrases should be understood according to Arminius’ interpretation of the relationship between foreknowledge and predestination).

(a). It is doubtful whether the word ‘foreknowledge’ should be understood to mean knowledge of an event before it happens. It might be wiser to connect our interpretation of the word ‘foreknowledge’ with those biblical passages which tend to equate the word ‘know’ with the word ‘love’ (The word “know” is used often for God’s gracious love in the Old Testament, cf. Gen. 18:19; Ex. 33:12; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:3; Hos. 13:5; and in the New Testament, 1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9.’ C. Pinnock (ed.), Grace Unlimited, (Minneapolis, 1975), 188, n. 45). The significance of the word ‘foreknowledge’ would then be that it reminds us that we have been loved by God long before we ever thought of loving him.

(b). G. C. Berkouwer, citing H. Bavinck, stresses that while God’s counsel may be described as "an eternal act of God", it should not be described as "an act of God in the past" (Divine Election, 152).

J. Philip makes a similar point:

"although the Bible speaks of predestination ‘before all worlds’, it does not necessarily mean any ‘long-long-ago’ kind of idea" (The Westminster Confession of Faith: An Exposition, Part 1, Chapters 1-8, (Edinburgh, 1966), 27). "We should perhaps think of eternity as "something all round us and liable to break in at any moment" (27). The word ‘decree’ has a rather unhappy and unfortunate connotation in its use in the thought of election and predestination... The idea of a decree does tend to sweep our minds away in a rather precarious direction. It may be this is why the Scriptures do not use the word. This shows us how careful we must be, when speaking of spiritual realities, to speak of them in words which the Bible uses" (26, 28).

(c). When Arminius bases his view of predestination on a particular temporal order, we may ask how appropriate it is to apply a temporal order to eternity (Berkouwer, Divine Election, 39). G. C. Berkouwer suggests that speaking of predestination in this way is ‘a clear form of humanization of God" (267).Here, we need to heed the advice of both I. H. Marshall: "our language of predestination... applied to divine-human relationships... does break down" (In C. Pinnock (ed.), Grace Unlimited, 135) and G. C. Berkouwer: "he who speaks of God’s counsel in terms of human categories will have to be aware of the inadequacy of his words" (Divine Election, 152).

Arminius may have run into difficulties with his view of the relationship between foreknowledge and predestination. Nonetheless, he has achieved a great deal in his doctrine of predestination, as Bangs points out: "Arminius had a high degree of success in meeting the criteria which he had established for an evangelical doctrine of predestination.

It is Christological - based on Jesus Christ.

It is evangelical - the good news of free salvation, God is not the author of sin, and man is not the author of salvation: the Reformation principle of sola gratia, sola fidei is maintained (354).

LIMITED ATONEMENT

Here, we need to distinguish clearly between what Arminius does say and what he does not say. In emphasizing the universality of the atonement, Arminius teaches neither a universal election to salvation nor an ultimate universalism of salvation. He rejects the idea of ‘a universal election to salvation’ and affirms ‘the particular election of believers and the particular reprobation of unbelievers’ (Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, p. 212). In this, he echoes the reserve with which Scripture speaks of election in connection with the salvation which believers have received through faith in Jesus Christ. Arminius clearly dissociates himself from the teaching of universalism by insisting that ‘saving grace is not universal’ (Bangs, p. 212). He maintains that ‘saving grace is given only to those who are saved, and only those who believe are saved’ (Bangs, p. 212).

While Arminius does not teach a universal election to salvation, he does strongly emphasize the love of God for all sinners and the ‘offering up of (the Saviour) … not for believers, but for men as sinners’ (The Works of James Arminius, D.D., (London edition of 1825, 1828, and 1875), lll, 336. Cited by Bangs, p. 214). Here, we should note the importance of taking care in our use of words when we preach the gospel. It is one thing to say to sinners, ‘You are loved’. It is quite another thing to say, ‘You are elect’. The word ‘loved’ is used in Scripture with reference to the world for which God gave his Son as ‘the Saviour of the world’ (John 3:16; 4:42). The word ‘elect’ refers to those who have, in faith, received Jesus Christ as their own Saviour. There is no limitation of God’s love for sinners. We dare not, however, speak of election in a way that isolates it from the experience of salvation through faith in Christ. By speaking of the universality of the atonement, Arminius seeks to point sinners to the Saviour whose grace is freely available to them.

From the cross, the message comes to all sinners: ‘None need perish, none need perish. All may live, for Christ has died’ (G. M. Philip, The School of Discipleship, (Aberdeen, 1971), p. 81). In denying the idea of a universal election to salvation, Arminius intends to emphasize that the Christ who died ‘for the sins of the whole world’ must be received in faith if the blessings of his salvation are to be enjoyed (The phrase, ‘for the sins of the whole world’ is taken from 1 John 2:2). G. Philip, in a sermon on ‘Judgment’, comments on the words, ‘None need perish, none need perish, All may live, for Christ has died’: “None need perish because Christ has died. Judgment need not be, because Christ has died. But the corollary to that is simply that judgment must be, when the Christ who died is refused” (p. 81).

By emphasizing the universality of the atonement without teaching the notion of universal salvation, Arminius teaches us that we must take care in our use of the word ‘forgiven’. It is one thing to say to sinners, ‘You are loved by God’. It is quite another thing to say, ‘You have been forgiven by God’. The gospel does not come to us, saying, ‘Christ died in your place, all your sins are… forgiven’ (G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election, p. 233, citing H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, IV, 709). The gospel comes to us as a call to faith, a call to receive the forgiveness of our sins through faith in Christ. In our preaching of the gospel, we joyfully proclaim that ‘the atonement originates in the love of God’ (G. M. Tuttle, So Rich A Soil: John McLeod Campbell on Christian Atonement, (Edinburgh, 1986), p. 79).

We must, however, take care not to preach the message of God’s love in a manner which might devalue the call for the response of faith through which forgiveness is received. While agreeing with Tuttle’s statement, ‘the atonement originates in the love of God’, we may call in question another phrase he uses, ‘forgiveness… precedes the atonement’ (p. 79). In my review of Tuttle’s book, I wrote, ‘I do not agree with Tuttle that “forgiveness… precedes the atonement’ (p.79). Rather, we should say: “Prior to the atonement, God wills forgiveness; through the atonement, God offers forgiveness; through faith, humanity receives forgiveness; to all, the gospel says, “You are loved”; to the believer, the gospel says, “You are forgiven”.’ (This review appears-rather surprisingly! - in two separate editions of the same theological journal - Reformed Review, (Holland, Michigan, autumn 1988 and spring 1989), Vol. 42, No. 1, 85 and Vol. 42, No. 3, 262-263).

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

Arminius is outspoken in his opposition to the concept of irresistible grace. He says that ‘to eny that man can resist grace is to go against Scripture’ (Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, 216). He expresses himself even more forthrightly when he writes, "I am fully persuaded that the doctrine of irresistible grace is repugnant to the sacred Scriptures" (This statement is recorded in a letter from Adrian Borrius to Simon Episcopius, July 30, 1609, Praestantium ac eruditorum virorum epistolae ecclesiasticae et theologicae. It is quoted in part in The Works of James Arminius, D.D. (London edition of 1825, 1828, and 1875), I, 301-302; II, 230-231; and also in Caspar Brandt, The Life of James Arminius, D.D., (American edition, 1857), 351-352. Cited by Bangs, Op. cit., 325).
It should not, however, be supposed that Arminius has a man-centred emphasis which directs our attention away from the grace of God. He emphasizes that men are not saved because they will to be saved; they are saved because they are those whom God has predestined to save that is, believers (Bangs, 212).
While Arminius resists any suggestion that faith is the result of a deterministic necessity, he is most concerned to stress that the foundation is not man’s good works but God’s grace. In his lecture, ‘On the Vocation of Men to Salvation’, he draws attention to the activity of divine grace in bringing men to faith.
"Vocation is God’s gracious act in Christ whereby he calls ‘sinful men who are liable to condemnation’... The man who is the subject of vocation is ‘unworthy to be called, and unfit to answer the call’ … External vocation is by the ministry of men; internal vocation is the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit" (Bangs, 323-324, citing Works, I, 570-574).
In his refusal to accept the idea of irresistible grace, Arminius is seeking to make two points.
First, the man who responds to divine grace does make a real choice when he chooses Christ.
Second, the man who refuses Christ is seriously and sincerely called to receive salvation hrough faith in Christ.
The believer gratefully acknowledges the activity of divine grace in bringing him to faith - "He drew me and I followed on, Charmed to confess the voice divine" - without drawing attention away from his own choice "O happy day! that fixed my choice on Thee, my Saviour and my God"(This hymn - "O happy day, that fixed my choice" - written by Philip Doddridge (1702-51), is contained in a number of hymn books, e.g. The Believers Hymn Book (188), Christian Worship (365), The Church Hymnary (Revised Edition) (499), Hymns For Today’s Church (442)¯slightly altered wording, Mission Praise (169), Redemption Hymnal (619), Sacred Songs and Solos (866), Songs of God’s People (83)). When the believer is led by grace to know the love of Christ, it is, as though, he could hardly resist such grace. Nevertheless, the possibility of resisting the divine grace is a real one, and the choice of Christ is a real choice. The unbeliever cannot find an excuse for his unbelief in any distinction between God’s revealed will and his secret will. Both secretly and openly, God does want all men to be saved. This is the good news which Arminius seeks to proclaim.
When we speak about the believer’s response of faith, we must not lose sight of the activity of divine grace. Commenting on this aspect of Arminius’ thought, Bangs writes, "Who then can believe? it is too simple to say for Arminius that everyone can believe. Only he who does believe can believe. One is reminded of Karl Barth’s statement: ‘The possibility of faith becomes manifest in its actuality’. The possibility and the act cannot be separated… the possibility... is a possibility of grace... in the act of believing, man’s will is liberated, and his liberated will concurs in its gracious liberation" (Bangs, 343).
When we speak of the unbeliever’s refusal of Christ, we must not lose sight of the nature of divine grace. Arminius stresses that the grace of God is not "a certain irresistible force... it is a
Person, the Holy Spirit, and in personal relationships there cannot be the sheer overpowering of one person by another" (Bangs, 343). Arminius insists that "many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered" (Works, I, 253-254. Cited by Bangs, 343). The believer glories in the grace through which he has been brought to salvation. The unbeliever stands under judgment because of his refusal to receive the saving grace which has been freely offered to him in Jesus Christ.

THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

Arminius could be presented as an avowed enemy of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. In support of this interpretation of Arminius, one might cite the following passage: "In the beginning of faith in Christ... the believer becomes a living member of Christ; and, if persevering in the faith of Christ... remains a living member. But if it happens that this member grows slothful, is not careful over itself, gives place to sin, by little and little, it becomes half-dead; and so at length, proceeding still further, dies altogether, and ceases to be a member" (The Works of James Arminius, D.D., (London edition of 1825, 1828 and 1875), 111, 470. Cited by Bangs, 219).

This would seem to be emphatic evidence that Arminius takes a ‘falling from grace’ stance over against a ‘once saved-always saved’ position. If, however, we take account of some other statements made by Arminius, we find that his position is not quite so simple. Of particular relevance are the following two statements. First, Arminius states that he "should not readily dare to say that true and saving faith may finally and totally fall away" (Works, III, 454. Cited by Bangs, 217). Second, Arminius says that he had never affirmed "that a true believer can either totally or finally fall away from the faith and perish" (Works, I, 254. cited by Bangs, 348-349).
In an attempt to draw together these two apparently contradictory sides of Arminius’ thought, we may observe that, for Arminius, "the term 'believer' is not exactly equivalent to the term 'elect'"’ (Bangs, 349). He writes, "Since election to salvation comprehends within its limits not only faith but likewise perseverance in faith ... believers and the elect are not taken for the same person" (Works, I, 385. Cited by Bangs, 349). Commenting on these aspects of Arminius’ theology, Bangs writes, "He tried to construct a doctrine of assurance that would avoid the twin errors (of unwarranted security and unwarranted despair)" (Bangs, 347). Arminius seeks to strengthen the true believer’s assurance of salvation without giving any encouragement to a false assurance.
Anyone who has wrestled with the notoriously difficult question - ‘once saved, always saved’ or ‘falling from grace’ - will appreciate the complexity of the issues involved in presenting a truly biblical doctrine of assurance. This is not merely a matter of theological theory. It is a matter of the greatest practical importance: How can I, in the day-by-day life of faith, enjoy an ongoing experience of salvation?
The twentieth-century Dutch theologian, G. C. Berkouwer has written perceptively on the subjectin his book, Faith and Perseverance (Grand Rapids, 1958). He maintains that "the living preaching of the Scriptures... offers no metaphysical and theoretical views about... 'permanency'" as a theme in itself (13). He insists that Scripture does nothing to encourage "a continuity which is... opposed in any way to the living nature of faith" (13).
Berkouwer stresses this point: "The perseverance of the saints is not primarily a theoretical problem but a confession of faith" (14). "The perseverance of the saints is unbreakably connected with the assurance of faith" (11).
L. B. Smedes has provided us with a helpful summary of Berkouwer’s doctrines of perseverance: "The doctrine of perseverance is an assurance gained only in faith, in the faith that finds its way to assurance through doubt and temptation, in the faith that is directed only to Christ. The faith that looks to Christ realizes that grace has priority over his doubts and weakness. Our duty to persevere is oriented to God’s preservation. And we find confidence in God’s preservation of us only when we see His powerful grace at the Cross. Assurance is not the prerogative of the person who can reason inferentially from a doctrine of election. Assurance is the gift that everyone finds who finds God at the Cross. The admonitions of Scripture to persevere lest we fall, the temptation to disbelieve, and the weakness of the human will, are the ways along which faith comes to rest in the reliability of grace. For these, within the Christian life of faith, are goads to drive us to the Cross, the only place where the faith-certainty of perseverance is found" (In P. E. Hughes (ed.), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology, (Grand Rapids, 1969), 91).

CONCLUDING COMMENT

In our theology of salvation, we must take care to preserve the dual emphasis of Scripture on both grace and faith: ‘By grace you have been saved through faith’ (Ephesians 2:8). It is not 'grace without faith’, and it is not ‘faith apart from grace’. Salvation is by grace without faith’, and it is not ‘faith apart from grace’. Salvation is ‘by grace through faith’. We are ‘kept by the power of God through faith’ (1 Peter 1:5). It is not ‘the power of God apart from faith’, and it is not ‘faith independently of the power of God’. We are ‘kept by the power of God through faith’. In seeking to maintain the biblical balance between grace and faith, we may, perhaps surprisingly, find in Arminius, a theologian from whom we can learn much. He does not fit easily into the Calvinist - Arminian patterns of theological pigeonholing. He challenges us to think more deeply about the gospel, which is greater than all our systems. He invites us to have confidence in the gospel of Jesus Christ without becoming overconfident in any particular interpretation, such as inflexible ‘Calvinism’ or superficial ‘Arminianism’.

Carl Bangs, “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation”

2011-09-30T13:43:00.000+01:00

If you wish to read more of what I have written about this book, you may be interested in my review (Reformed Review, 40:2:145) and my article (“Arminius: Hero or Heretic?”, The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. LXIV/No.3, July 1992, pp. 213-227 -

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (1)

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (2): The Five Points of Calvinism - Total Depravity

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (3): The Five Points of Calvinism - Unconditional Election

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (4): The Five Points of Calvinism - Limited Atonement

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (5): The Five Points of Calvinism - Irresistible Grace

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (6): The Five Points of Calvinism - The Perseverance of the Saints

Arminius - Hero or Heretic? (7): Concluding Comment).

In this post, I will draw comparisons between Arminius and Berkouwer.

* Bangs points out that the historical situation in Holland was not a simple one - Calvinism coming in, Arminius nearly ruining it and the Synod of Dort restoring it: “The earliest Dutch Reformed leaders don’t seem to be Calvinists at all. They rise out of the soil, here and there, nurtured by the old Dutch biblical piety, not seized by dogmatic insights, but steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to Scripture” (p. 21).

This emphasis is similar to Berkouwer’s insistence that election is not a special gnosis for the theological elite. Rather, it is a confession of faith, arising from the hearts of those who have come to know the grace of God (Divine Election (DE), p. 216).

* Bangs observes that Arminius’ theological method is “practical and through faith”: “For the Theology which belongs to this world, is practical and through faith: Theoretical Theology belongs to the other world, and consists of pure and unclouded vision. For this reason we must clothe the object of our Theology in such a manner as may enable us to worship God, and fully to persuade and win us over to that practice” (p. 63, citing “Oration on the Object of Theology”, The Works of James Arminius, D. D. (WJA), (London edition 1825, 1828, 1875), I, p. 264).

This understanding of theology bears an amazing similarity to Berkouwer’s doxological approach which sets the doctrine of election in the context of praise and thanksgiving (DE, pp. 26, 65).

* Bangs looks closely at Arminius’ exposition of Romans 9 (Chapter 14 – “Theology in Amsterdam: Romans 9; The Conference with Junius”, pp. 193-205).

In Romans 9, Arminius finds the message of justification, the message of the freedom of God’s mercy, by which He determines that it will be the believer who will be saved. This is an affirmation of predestination. God has predestined to salvation all who believe in Christ.

Bangs argues that Arminius stands in the Reformed tradition, since he insists that salvation is by grace alone and that human merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. Only faith in Christ places the sinner in the company of the elect (p. 340). Arminius’ understanding of Romans 9 is remarkably similar to the view expounded by Berkouwer as Reformed (DE, pp. 64-79, 209-217).

* Against synergism, Arminius affirms that grace is essential for the beginning, continuation and consummation of faith. He does, however, reject the distinction between a universal call which must be resisted and a special call which must be heeded.

“Whomsoever God calls, he calls them seriously, with a will desirous pf their repentance and salvation” (Bangs, p. 343; citing “Certain Articles”, WJA, (London edition 1956), I, p. 497).

“The whole controversy reduces itself to this question, ‘Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’ … I believe that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered” (Bangs, p. 343, citing WJA, 1956, pp. 253-254).

Arminius’ point is that grace is not a force. Grace is a Person, the Holy Spirit, and, in personal relationships, there cannot be sheer overpowering. This is precisely what Berkouwer is concerned to maintain in his protest against the ‘potestas absoluta’ (DE, pp. 60ff; cf The Return of Christ, p. 444). It is precisely what Berkouwer means by his idea of the divine sovereignty as “the personal superiority of love and grace” (DE, pp. 49, 46).

* Regarding the enigmatic character of Arminius, Bangs writes, “Some Calvinists, finding that his writings do not produce the heresies they expected, have charged him with teaching secret heresy unpublished. Many Arminians, finding him too Calvinistic, have written him off as a transitional thinker, a ‘forerunner’” (p. 118; cf. A P F Sell, The Great Debate, Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation (GD) – “in important respects Arminius was not an Arminian” (p. 97)).

Berkouwer stands in the line of this element of the Dutch Reformation. To those who like to classify theologians as ‘Calvinists’ or ‘Arminians’, he is an enigma. He does not seem to fit. Perhaps, this is because he recognizes that the Gospel itself does not fit neatly into our systems.

In his booklet, A Hole in the Dike: Critical Aspects of Berkouwer’s Theology, C W Bogue has difficulty in classifying Berkouwer within his own Calvinist – Arminian distinction (p. 19).

A helpful manner of stating the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is found in A P F Sell, GD. – “Arminianism says that half the work is God’s and half the work is man’s. Calvinism asserts that the whole is God’s and the whole is man’s also” (p. 1, citing Colloquia Peripatetica … being notes of conversations with the late John Duncan, 6^th edition, 1907, p. 29).

* Arminius was committed to the Reformed Confessions and their creative interpretation. He was concerned to teach nothing other than the teaching of the Dutch Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism (Bangs, pp. 460-461).

He sought to present his teaching of predestination as true to the historic teaching of the Church, by which he meant the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism (p. 350).

Nonetheless, there was a curious duality about his relationship to the Confession and the Catechism.

He believed his views to be consonant with them yet he wanted them to be revised, reduced to the essentials, to remove the ambiguities that allowed for the views of his opponents (p. 315).

* If Arminius is understood according to his deepest intentions and not according to a Pelagian distortion of his meaning, he can be regarded as a Reformed theologian, committed to the Confession and the Catechism, while maintaining an element of ambiguity with respect to them.

In essence, this is Berkouwer’s position. He seeks to interpret the Reformed standards, being careful to state which interpretation he favours and which he avoids.

In his favourable citation of recent developments in the confessional life of the Dutch
Church, his concern is with interpretation rather than categorical rejection of the Canons of Dort.

A child of the Reformation, Berkouwer seeks always to interpret, rather than categorically reject, the Reformers and the Reformed Confessions.

He bears a marked affinity to the Dutch reformation, “nurtured by the old Dutch biblical piety, steadily pressing toward a purified life of faith according to the Scriptures” (Bangs, p. 21).

When we make a connection between Berkouwer and “the old Dutch biblical piety”, we should note also his “consistent apologetic intention … directed against scholasticism” (S Meijers, Objectiviteit en Existentialiteit (Objectivity and Existentiality), p.448).

His work is done in a pietistic rather than a scholastic perspective. This does not lead him into subjectivism. It does enable him to deal with the living character of God’s Word.

A Critique of A. L. Baker’s book, “G. C. Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance?”

2011-09-30T13:42:00.000+01:00

The book, “G. C. Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance?”, made its first appearance as a Th.D. dissertation (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976), entitled “A Critical Evaluation of G. C. Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election.”
It is my view that, apart from providing a catchy title, the revision of the original title adds nothing but ambiguity.
Showing distinct displeasure with Berkouwer’s treatment of ‘reprobation’ and with his interpretation of the Canons of Dort (pp. 39, 41-42, 115-126), Baker clearly holds that Berkouwer’s doctrine of election does not give a balanced account of the Biblical teaching on election.
Berkouwer, on the other hand, would argue that the strength of his doctrine of election is closely related to his rejection of the ‘balance’ of the equal ultimacy concept (cf. Divine Election, “Election and Rejection”, Chapter Six, pp. 172-217).
In view of this ambiguity, the original title might have been preferred unless, of course, this element has been deliberately introduced to arouse interest. There is, however, hardly any indication that Baker is aware of this ambiguity.
Maintaining that Berkouwer has continually failed to expound the full teaching of Scripture concerning the ‘before’ element of divine election, Baker insists that “Berkouwer cannot communicate what the Bible means by ‘election’ if he neglects such a determinative concept” (pp. 102-103). Referring to the phrase “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; John 17:24; 1 Peter 1:20), Baker states that “Berkouwer has never commented at any length in any of his Dogmatics on the significance of these words” (p. 102).
It may also be argued that Baker’s failure to discuss at any length Berkouwer’s concept of the “depth-aspect” of salvation weakens his criticism of Berkouwer’s interpretation of the ‘before’ element of election.
Here, we may note what Berkouwer says about the depth-aspect of salvation.
Recognizing the inadequacy of human language, Berkouwer seeks to understand the language of predestination in connection with the “depth-aspect” of salvation (Divine Election, pp. 113, 150, 168). He emphasizes that “the depth-aspect of salvation … is not a matter of hiddenness which goes beyond the knowledge of faith … not something far distant, not a vague, threatening reality, but the foundation of salvation … ” (pp. 113-114 - in a discussoion of Biblical passages which speak about “the Book of Life”).
With this idea of the depth-aspect of salvation, Berkouwer seeks to understand the idea of ‘before the foundation of the world.’ He emphasizes that “These words do not occur in Scripture as a threat, but in the decisive depth-aspect of salvation. They are not placed in a context in which they make us dizzy in the face of an unapproachable ‘eternity’, … but they are intended to show us the source of our eternal salvation … ‘Before’ indicates that this divine act of salvation, preached to us by the gospel, is free from what we know in the world to be arbitrary and precarious … in this depth-aspect of God’s salvation it becomes … evident that this salvation did not originate in our flesh and blood, and that it is by no means of human merit or creation. But precisely this fact does not obscure the way; on the contrary, it illumines it. ‘Before the foundation of the world’ means to direct our attention to what can be called the opposite of chance and contingence.” (pp. 150-151).
Berkouwer’s basic understanding of the depth-aspect is defined thus: “When we speak of the depth-aspect, we mean that eternity does not stand in contrast to what in time becomes historical reality, but rather that the salvation accomplished by Christ’s death of reconciliation cannot be merely historical, but that it has its eternal foundation in the love of God” (p. 168).
Berkouwer does not wish to dispense with the ‘before’ element in God’s election. Rather, he seeks to understand it in a way that does not diminish the significance of the historical revelation of God’s love in Jesus Christ.
Baker contends that, in his interpretation of Ephesians 1:4 - “chosen before the foundation of the world” - , Berkouwer has undermined the ontological foundation of divine election. There is, in Baker’s view, a suggestion that he has not distanced himself sufficiently from his own outlook in order to understand more sympathetically and accurately Berkouwwer’s understanding of the language of predestination.
In his critique of Berkouwer’s doctrine of election, A. L. Baker writes, “Berkouwer desires to maintain a dynamic concept of election, but instead lays most of his emphasis on the human response to the gospel. He continually warns against ‘an objectivized election that goes its own way without consideration for faith and unbelief” (G. C. Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance?, (1981), p. 67, citing Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, p. 333).
In response to this criticism, it should be pointed out that, as well as placing a proper emphasis on the human response to the Gospel, Berkouwer, in his exposition of the doctrine of election, repeatedly emphasizes the divine origin of our salvation:
“… in Scripture the election of God … does not come out of works but out of grace” (Divine Election, p. 51),
“God’s electing plan prepares the way of salvation in which man learns that salvation is obtained only as a divine gift and never as an acquisition because of good works” (p. 68).
“… salvation … has its eternal foundation in the love of God” (p. 168).
“election is not of works but of Him who called” (p. 217).
“God’s election is sovereign and gracious, and hence not based on any human quality” (p. 308).
In view of Berkouwer’s repeated affirmation of the divine character of election, it must be denied that most of his emphasis is laid on the human response. Rather, it should be pointed out that Berkouwer’s penetrating analysis of the competition-motif enables him to place due emphasis on the human response without threatening the divine character of God’s gracious election .
Berkouwer emphasizes that a full emphasis on the significance of faith does not relativize the gracious character of salvation - “The character of faith resolves all tension between objectivity and subjectivity, For faith has significance only in its orientation to its object - the grace of God. Thus sola fide, instead of directing our attention to the believer, points us away from him to grace and God … Sola fide and sola gratia mean the same thing.” (Faith and Justification, pp. 29, 44, italics original).
In response to Baker’s contention that Berkouwer has continually failed to expound the ‘before’ element in election, it may be argued that Berkouwer has expounded this element. He has offered a different kind of exposition from that which Baker is asking for. An alternative exposition must, however, be distinguished from the absence of any exposition.