Skip to main content

Berkouwer and Philosophy

Berkouwer approaches the questions of God, man and evil differently from philosophical theology. It should not, however, be thought that his approach is unphilosophical. He is concerned to think clearly about these issues. He is, however, concerned to deal with “actual knowledge of God” (This expression is used by T. F. Torrance in God and Rationality, p.165. It occurs in his chapter, “The Epistemological Relevance of the Holy Spirit.” This chapter first appeared in Ex Auditu Verbi,  a collection of articles published in honour of Berkouwer, pp. 272-296) and the perspective such knowledge offers concerning “actual man” (Man: The Image of God, p. 13) as he faces the “existential” problem of evil (Sin, p. 15). This perspective refuses to build an independent system and then apply it to the questions of God, man and evil (cf. T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality, pp. 165ff.).  In adopting such an approach, Berkouwer is allowing his philosophical thinking to be dominated by the reality of God. He recognizes that, in any Christian philosophy, God’s revelation of Himself must precede man’s knowledge of God (Holy Scripture, p. 10; cf. T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality, p. 181). The recognition of the priority of revelation is understood in neither a fundamentalist nor an existentialist context (cf. T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality,  pp. 168, 177). It is set within the  context of the affirmation of “the epistemological relevance of the Holy Spirit” (T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality, pp. 165-192) in both the revelation of God and man’s reception of that revelation (cf. Holy Scripture, Chapter Five – “The God-Breathed Character of Holy Scripture”, pp. 139-169; T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality, pp. 168, 185).
When the philosophical framework of Berkouwer’s theology is understood, it becomes clear how he is able to deal with the criticism that he has not answered the philosopher’s questions. Such a criticism of Berkouwer may also be an implicit criticism of the philosopher’s way of asking questions rather than Berkouwer’s theological method. The consistency with which Berkouwer follows through the conviction that God is the living God is most impressive. He allows the living Object of faith to inform his faith at every point (cf. Holy Scripture, p. 10; T. F. Torrance, God and Rationality, p. 115; J. Rogers, Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical, p. 58). Throughout his theology, he proclaims the living God who cannot be reduced to an abstraction, even for the purposes of theological discussion. His theology proclaims that man has to do with the living God and, therefore, man cannot be discussed without taking this God into account (cf. Man: The Image of God,  p. 27, where Berkouwer emphasizes that a true knowledge of man is not possible apart from the self-knowledge which comes through knowledge of the living God).
What is the essential difference between Berkouwer’s theology and philosophical theology? We must not suggest that the one approach is philosophical while the other is not. It is a difference in the way of asking questions (cf. D. G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty, p. 124. Concerning the problem of evil, he writes, “Christianity offers no all-encompassing explanation of evil. But it does point to the sure and final answer – Jesus Christ.” The conclusions reached concerning a particular question reflect the way in which that question is asked). The Christian asks his questions about God, himself and evil in a spirit of faith because he knows that he is not simply ignorant man seeking intellectual knowledge but sinful man seeking divine forgiveness.
Berkouwer’s theology does not seem to be particularly suited to overcome the polarization between the believer and the unbeliever. It appears to accentuate this polarization. This impression is, however, only apparent. His theology promises to overcome polarization within the believing Church of Jesus Christ, so that she might be set free from asking the wrong questions in the wrong way (cf. D. G. Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty,  p. 61. He holds that Berkouwer’s greatness as a theologian is directly related to his ability to “explain what the faith does not mean as well as what it means”), and thus be be set free for the real task of proclaiming Christ to an unbelieving world. Through such proclamation, the polarization between faith and unbelief is overcome not by argument but through conversion .
The value  of Berkouwer’s approach to the issues with which philosophy has concerned itself lies in his consistent emphasis on the existential character of these questions. This existential character requires to be recognized by all who discuss these questions, if the discussion is not to be merely theoretical and lacking in moral seriousness. Thus, the Christian’s concern is not simply with winning an argument but with leading others in the entirety of their existence to faith in Christ. This can happen when the non-Christian approaches the discussion with a real openness to the possibility of being converted to Christ.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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 o...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

In his contribution to Clark Pinnock (editor), Grace Unlimited (1975), G. R. Osborne states that Berkouwer, in Faith and Perseverance, pp. 9-10, “speaks of the time less ness of the doctrine of final perseverance, founded on ‘the richness and abidingness of salvation” (p. 188, emphasis mine). This single-sentence comment on Berkouwer’s view hardly gives a fair indication of the type of thinking found in Chapter 1 of Berkouwer’s Faith and Perseverance - “Time li ness and Relevance” (pp. 9-14, emphasis mine). Berkouwer insists that “the living preaching of the Scriptures, which offer no metaphysical and theoretical views about … ‘permanency’ as an independent theme in itself, does nothing to encourage ‘a continuity which is … opposed in any way to the living nature of faith” (p. 13). Berkouwer stresses that “The perseverance of the saints is not primarily a theoretical problem but a confession of faith” (p. 14) and that “The perseverance of the saints is unbreakably connected wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Faith in Scripture as God's Word

Berkouwer criticizes "an incorrect conception of theology, a conception of theology, a conception which considers it possible to discuss Holy Scripture apart from a personal relationship of belief in it, as though that alone would constitute true 'objectivity'." (Holy Scripture, pp. 9-10). He holds that those who view Scripture in this way "wrongly ... see involvement and correlation as subjectivism" (Holy Scripture, p.10). Such a misguided fear of subjectivism lapses into a false objectivism with its suggestion that Christian truth can be considered without direct reference to the believer's personal involvement with that truth. Berkouwer maintains that there must be a proper understanding of the correlation between faith and its object. He emphasizes that "faith is decisively determined by the object of faith, namely God and His Word". He rejects the idea that "Scripture ... derives its authority from the believer's faith...
Post a Comment
Read more