The “land” was given to Abraham by God. It was to be the land of His
“blessing” (Genesis 12:1-3). God’s gift of grace calls forth our
response – “Abraham went, as the Lord had spoken to him” (Genesis 12:4).
God had spoken. Abraham had acted upon God’s Word. Was it all plain
sailing after that? No! There were trying times ahead of Abraham, times
when he had to keep his eyes on the Lord. Receiving God’s gift of
salvation does not guarantee that we will always walk with the Lord. We
fall into sin – when we take our eyes off the Lord. “Now there was a
famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for
the famine was severe in the land” (Genesis 12:10). What are we make of
this? What was going on here? Here are two different ways of looking at
this situation – “Even when we are where God wants us to be, all will
not necessarily go well for us materially – no matter what the
prosperity gospel teaches. Abram was in the land God had sent him to,
but that land was afflicted by famine (Genesis 12:10). The Lord does,
however, guarantee to provide a way out. While there was famine in
Canaan, there was enough food in Egypt and so Abram went there to wait
till the famine in Canaan was over (Genesis 12:11)” (Africa Bible Commentary);
“During a time of serious famine, Abram left the place of God’s
choosing and fled to Egypt, a symbol of the world. This move bred
trouble” (Believer’s Bible Commentary). Was Abram led by the
Lord to go to Egypt? or Did he take a wrong turning? One thing we can
say is this: When Abraham arrived in Egypt, he needed to be very
careful. There’s a lesson for us here: We are not to rest content with
receiving God’s gift of salvation. We are to press on from the
beginnings of our faith. We are to press on to a greater enjoyment of
our salvation. This growing joy in the Lord is more than looking back
and saying, “There was a day in my life when I accepted Jesus as my
Saviour.” We look back with thanksgiving. We say, “O happy day that
fixed my choice on You, my Saviour and my God” – but we must not remain
in the past. The life of faith is for here-and-now. The vow that we made
to the Lord when we first came is to be renews day-by-day: “So God, who
heard my solemn vow, in daily prayer shall hear my voice till in my
final breath I bow and bless the day that fixed my choice” (P.
Doddridge, this version – Jubilate Hymns). Abraham let the Lord
down. He had accepted the Lord’s will for his life, and then he had
lost his way. Did he lose his way by going to Egypt? or Did he lose his
way once he had arrived in Egypt? Whatever may be said about Abraham
losing his way, there is something we must not overlook: Abraham found
his way back to the Lord. He learned from his mistakes.If his time in
Egypt taught him anything, it taught him this: Be careful. Abram saw
that “the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” –
and Abraham made sure that he kept well away from that place (Genesis
13:8-13, “Lot got grass for his cattle. Abram got grace for his
children”, Believer’s Bible Commentary – Lot plunged into
worldliness. Abraham progressed into holiness). We are not saved by our
great holiness. We are saved by the grace of God – the God who gives to
us His salvation. We receive this salvation through faith in Christ –
“it is not our own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). We
need, however, to be reminded, again and again, that our joy in the Lord
will only grow strong when we are learning to walk with Him on the
pathway of holiness – “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus,
for good works … ” (Ephesians 2:10).
The question of universalism in Barth’s theology has been raised directly by J D Bettis in his article, “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” (Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1967, pp. 423-436). This article requires to be carefully discussed not only for its significance as an interpretation of Barth’s thought but also because it presents a serious misrepresentation of Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. Bettis writes, “Modern protestant theology has defined three basic answers to the question of the particularity of election: double predestination, Arminianism and universalism” (p. 423). By attempting to fit Berkouwer into “this structure of alternatives” (p. 423), he misrepresents completely Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. According to Bettis, Brunner and Berkouwrer hold that “because Barth fails to accept either Brunner’s Arminianism or Berkouwer's double decree, he must be a universalist” (p. 426). There are two misrepresentations of Berkouwer here. (...
Comments
Post a Comment