‘The
Lord reigns’(Psalm 96:10; Psalm 97:1). ‘The Lord is King!’. He is not
only ‘the King all-glorious above’. He is ‘the King of love’. He is ‘our
Maker, Defender, Redeemer and Friend!’. He is not only ‘the King of
heaven’. He is ‘the God of grace’. He is ‘the King of mercy’(Church Hymnary,
35,36,388,360,86). His reign is not to be restricted to some faraway
heaven. It is not to be a reign that is far removed from the
practicalities of our everyday life. He is to reign in our hearts.
He is to reign in every part of our life. Let His reign of love begin.
Let His grace and mercy control all that you do. We must pray, ‘Reign in me, Sovereign Lord, reign in me’. When we say, ‘Let Your Kingdom come’ and ‘let Your will be done’, we must pray, ‘Captivate my heart. Establish there Your throne’(Mission Praise, 570).
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